Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021

For the Transition Period from to .

Commission File Number 001-38114

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1140 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 9, New YorkNY10036

(Address of principal executive offices and zip code)

(781) 652-4500

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

(Title of Class) Trading Symbol(s) (Name of exchange on which registered)

Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share ATXI Nasdaq Global Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒

Emerging growth company ☒

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $16,813,403 based upon the closing sale price of our common stock of $2.51 on that date. Common stock held by each officer and director and by each person known to own in excess of 5% of outstanding shares of our common stock has been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. The determination of affiliate status in not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Class of Common Stock Outstanding Shares as of March 21, 2022

Table of Contents

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 4

Item 1A. Risk Factors 23

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 52

Item 2. Properties 52

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 52

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 52

PART II

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 59

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 59

Item 9B. Other Information 60

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 60

Item 11. Executive Compensation 65

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 72

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 73

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary 75

Table of Contents

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain matters discussed in this report may constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from the future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “may,” “expect” and similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. Our actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation, those discussed under the caption “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in this report. All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about our:

· expectations for increases or decreases in expenses;

· our use of clinical research centers and other contractors;

· acceptance of our products by doctors, patients or payors;

· our ability to compete against other companies and research institutions;

· our ability to secure adequate protection for our intellectual property;

· our ability to attract and retain key personnel;

· availability of reimbursement for our products;

· the volatility of our stock price;

· expected losses; and

· expectations for future capital requirements.

The forward-looking statements contained in this report reflect our views and assumptions as of the effective date of this report. Except as required by law, we assume no responsibility for updating any forward-looking statements.

We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to risks of which you should be aware before making an investment decision. The risks described below are a summary of the principal risks associated with an investment in us and are not the only risks we face. You should carefully consider

Table of Contents

these risk factors, the risk factors described in Item 1A, and the other reports and documents that we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Risks Pertaining to the Influence of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress”)

Risks Pertaining to Our Business and Influence

Risks Pertaining to Our Finances

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

Risks Pertaining to Regulatory Approval Process

Table of Contents

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes Thereof

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

OVERVIEW

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company that seeks to develop and commercialize our product principally for use in the acute/intensive care hospital setting. Our current product candidate is intravenous (“IV”) Tramadol, for the treatment of post-operative acute pain. Under the terms of certain agreements described herein, we have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize IV Tramadol in the United States. In 2016, we completed a pharmacokinetic study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers as well as an end of phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). In the third quarter of 2017, we initiated a Phase 3 development program of IV Tramadol for the management of post-operative pain. In December 2019, we submitted a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for IV Tramadol and received a Complete Response Letter (the “First CRL”) from the FDA in October 2020. In February 2021, we resubmitted the NDA for IV Tramadol. The FDA assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) goal date of April 12, 2021 for the resubmitted NDA for IV Tramadol. On June 14, 2021, we announced that we had received a second Complete Response Letter (the “Second CRL”) from the FDA regarding our NDA for IV tramadol. We continued to pursue regulatory approval for IV Tramadol and had a Type A meeting with the FDA in July 2021. We submitted a formal dispute resolution request (“FDRR”) with the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA on July 27, 2021. On August 26, 2021, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA in response to the FDRR submitted on July 27, 2021. On August 31, 2021, we submitted a FDRR with the Office of New Drugs (“OND”) of the FDA. On October 21, 2021, we received a written response from the OND of the FDA stating that the OND needs additional input from an Advisory Committee in order to reach a decision on the FDRR. On February 15, 2022, we had an Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA. In the final part of the public meeting, the Advisory Committee voted yes or no on the following question: “Has the applicant submitted adequate information to support the position that the benefits of their product outweigh the risks for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in an inpatient setting?” The results were 8 yes votes and 14 no votes. On March 18, 2022, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the OND in response to the FDRR. We are evaluating next steps with regard to IV Tramadol. To date, we have not received approval for the sale of our product candidate in any market and, therefore, have not generated any sales revenue from our product candidate.

Recent Developments

On November 12, 2018, we, InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“InvaGen”), and Madison Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into a Stock Purchase and Merger Agreement (“SPMA”), pursuant to which we agreed to our sale in a two-stage transaction. In the first stage, InvaGen agreed to purchase, for $35 million, common shares representing 33.3% of the fully diluted capitalization of our stock. In the second stage, InvaGen would acquire the remaining issued and outstanding of our capital stock for approximately $180 million in a reverse subsidiary merger transaction (the “Merger Transaction”). The SPMA was approved by a majority of our stockholders, including a majority of our non-affiliated stockholders, at our special shareholder meeting on February 6, 2019. On February 8, 2019, InvaGen acquired 5,833,333 shares of our common stock at $6.00 per share (the “Stock Purchase Transaction”) for net proceeds of $31.5 million after deducting commission fees and other offering costs, representing a 33.3% stake in our capital stock on a fully diluted basis. The SPMA was terminated on November 1, 2021.

In November 2021, through an underwritten public offering, we sold 2,238,805 shares of our common stock at a price of $1.34 per share resulting in net proceeds of $2.6 million. In addition, in December 2021, through an underwritten public offering, we sold 1,910,100 shares of our common stock at a price of $1.07 per share resulting in net proceeds of $1.8 million.

Background

On June 26, 2017, we completed an initial public offering (“IPO”) of our common stock, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $34.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts, and other offering costs.

We used the proceeds from our IPO to initiate our first Phase 3 trial of IV Tramadol in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy, which had its first patient dosed in September 2017. In May 2018, we announced the study met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints.

In December 2018, we initiated the second Phase 3 trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominoplasty upon successful completion of the bunionectomy study. In June 2019, we announced the study met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints.

Table of Contents

In December 2017, we initiated an open-label safety study, which was completed during the second quarter of 2019. The results showed that IV Tramadol is well-tolerated with a side effect profile consistent with known pharmacology.

In December 2019, we submitted an NDA pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In February 2020, the FDA accepted our NDA submission and set a PDUFA goal date of October 10, 2020. On October 12, 2020, we announced that we had received the First CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA. In November 2020, we had a Type A Meeting with the FDA to discuss issues raised in the First CRL. On February 12, 2021, we resubmitted the NDA to the FDA for IV Tramadol. The NDA resubmission followed the receipt of official minutes from a Type A meeting with the FDA, which was conducted following receipt of the First CRL. The NDA resubmission included revised language relating to the proposed product label and a report relating to terminal sterilization validation. The FDA assigned a PDUFA goal date of April 12, 2021 for the resubmitted NDA for IV Tramadol. On June 14, 2021, we announced that we had received the Second CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA for IV Tramadol. We continue to pursue regulatory approval for IV Tramadol and in connection therewith, had a Type A meeting with the FDA in July 2021. We submitted a FDRR with the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA on July 27, 2021. On August 26, 2021, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA in response to the FDRR submitted on July 27, 2021. On August 31, 2021, we submitted a FDRR with the OND of the FDA. On October 21, 2021, we received a written response from the OND of the FDA stating that the OND needs additional input from an Advisory Committee in order to reach a decision on the FDRR. On February 15, 2022, we had an Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA. In the final part of the public meeting, the Advisory Committee voted yes or no on the following question: “Has the Applicant submitted adequate information to support the position that the benefits of their product outweigh the risks for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in an inpatient setting?” The results were 8 yes votes and 14 no votes. On March 18, 2022, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the OND in response to the FDRR. We are evaluating next steps with regard to IV Tramadol.

On November 12, 2018, we, InvaGen, and Madison Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into the SPMA, in which we agreed to our sale in a two-stage transaction. In the first stage, InvaGen agreed to purchase, for $35 million, common shares representing 33.3% of our fully diluted capital stock. In the second stage, InvaGen would acquire our remaining issued and outstanding capital stock for approximately $180 million pursuant to the Merger Transaction. The SPMA was approved by a majority of our stockholders, including a majority of our non-affiliated stockholders, at our special shareholder meeting on February 6, 2019. On February 8, 2019, InvaGen acquired 5,833,333 shares of our common stock at $6.00 per share (the Stock Purchase Transaction) for net proceeds of $31.5 million after deducting commission fees and other offering costs, representing a 33.3% stake in our capital stock on a fully diluted basis.

Consummation of the Merger Transaction was conditioned upon, among other things, FDA approval of IV Tramadol, its labeling and scheduling, and the absence of certain other restrictions in effect with respect to IV Tramadol. Pursuant to the SPMA, if FDA approval of IV Tramadol was not obtained on or before April 30, 2021, InvaGen would not be subject to the mandatory closing obligations set forth in the SPMA with respect to the Merger Transaction (but would instead retain an option to complete the Merger Transaction up until such time as the SPMA was terminated). Pursuant to the SPMA, we could choose to terminate the SPMA after October 31, 2021, if FDA approval of IV Tramadol had not occurred by such time. On November 1, 2021, we terminated the SPMA.

Even though the SPMA has been terminated, InvaGen retains certain rights pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement, entered into on November 12, 2018 between us, InvaGen and Fortress, and other agreements entered into in connection therewith on such date. These rights exist as long as InvaGen maintains at least 75% of the common shares acquired in the Stock Purchase Transaction and include among other things, the right to restrict us from certain equity issuances and changes to our capital stock without obtaining InvaGen’s prior written consent.

Over the past year, we have communicated with InvaGen relating to InvaGen’s assertions that Material Adverse Effects (as defined in the SPMA) have occurred due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on potential commercialization and projected sales of IV Tramadol. Additionally, in connection with the resubmission of our NDA in February 2021, InvaGen communicated to us that it believes the proposed label for IV Tramadol would also constitute a Material Adverse Effect (as defined in the SPMA) on the purported basis that the proposed label under certain circumstances would make the product commercially unviable. Even though the SPMA has been terminated, it is still possible for InvaGen to pursue monetary claims against us and/or Fortress based on the foregoing or other potential causes of action.

We may need to obtain additional capital through the sale of debt or equity financings or other arrangements to fund our operations and research and development activity; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to raise needed capital under acceptable terms, if at all. The sale of additional equity may dilute existing stockholders and newly issued shares may contain senior rights and preferences compared to currently outstanding shares of common stock. Issued debt securities may contain covenants and limit our

Table of Contents

ability to pay dividends or make other distributions to stockholders. If we are unable to obtain such additional financing, future operations would need to be scaled back or discontinued.

We are a majority controlled subsidiary of Fortress.

CORPORATE INFORMATION

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on February 9, 2015. Our executive offices are located at 1140 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 9, New York, NY 10014. Our telephone number is (781) 652-4500, and our email address is info@avenuetx.com.

We maintain a website with the address www.avenuetx.com. We make available free of charge through our Internet website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. We are not including the information on our website as a part of, nor incorporating it by reference into, this report. Additionally, the SEC maintains a website that contains annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other information that issuers (including us) file electronically with the SEC. The SEC’s website address is http://www.sec.gov.

OUR STRATEGY

Our primary objective is to establish IV Tramadol as an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options for the management of postoperative pain. The key elements of our strategy include:

The U.S. Postoperative Pain Market

We are currently focused on developing our proprietary product candidate, IV Tramadol, for the management of postoperative acute pain. Even though the postoperative pain market is entrenched with low cost, generic pain relievers, we believe that there still remains a significant unmet medical need for safer and better-tolerated painkillers, which are also referred to as analgesics.

According to Decision Resources’ Acute Pain Report of October 2014, or the 2014 Pain Report, sales of analgesics delivered via parenteral routes (IV, subcutaneous, and intramuscular injections) for the management of acute pain totaled approximately $965 million in the United States in 2013. According to the 2014 Pain Report, there were over ten million select common inpatient procedures performed, all of which likely required postoperative pain management, in the United States in 2013. According to IMS Health, injectable analgesics sold approximately $1 billion in the United States in 2017.

The major goal in the management of postoperative pain is minimizing the dose of medications to lessen side effects while still providing adequate pain relief for analgesia. This is best accomplished with multimodal and preemptive analgesia. An effective pain relief program should be individualized for the particular patient, operation, and circumstances. In clinical practice, as there is no standard set of guidelines to manage postoperative pain, hospitals and even hospital units have their own practice guidelines that are

Table of Contents

often based on physicians’ prescribing practices. These local guidelines are rooted in physician experience as it relates to anticipated severity of pain due to a particular surgical procedure, and are often modified with consideration to things like staffing limitations, availability of specific drugs and/or formulations, access to patient controlled analgesia, or PCA, systems, and formulary restrictions. Thus, treatment regimens vary widely from hospital to hospital, physician to physician and patient to patient.

Understanding the range of available interventions and considering the type of surgery is essential to safe and effective pain management. The general consensus among pain management practitioners is that use of more than one modality (i.e., molecules with different mechanisms or with different routes of administration) is optimal for successful postoperative pain management. The most commonly prescribed agents in the immediate postoperative pain market are typically acetaminophen, or APAP, NSAIDS, and opioid analgesics. APAP and NSAIDs are not sufficiently effective as the sole agent for pain management after major surgery in most patients. However, when used in conjunction with opioids, APAP and NSAIDs offer substantial benefits as the quality of analgesia is often improved or enhanced due to their differentiated mechanism of action. Nevertheless, the substantial side effects associated with these agents represent an important concern for patients and physicians to address. NSAIDS in particular have their own serious side effects, including increased post-surgery bleeding, peptic ulcer disease and renal impairment, and is associated with hepatic side effects.

Traditional opioids offer safe and effective postoperative pain control and can be used in combination with other agents and techniques. However, the side effects of opioids, such as morphine, include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression. Physical dependence and addiction are clinical concerns that may prevent proper prescribing and, in turn, inadequate pain management. Less common side effects include delayed gastric emptying, hyperalgesia, immunologic and hormonal dysfunction, muscle rigidity, and myoclonus. Importantly, they are Schedule II opioids and carry a high abuse potential.

Therefore, there is still unmet medical need in the post-surgical setting. We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, can fill this unmet need. If approved, we believe that IV Tramadol will be an effective alternative to traditional opioids but carry a lower potential for abuse because tramadol is a Schedule IV opioid in the U.S.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) definition, substances classified as Schedule II have “a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence” and substances classified as Schedule IV are “drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule II and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics.”

The table below summarizes the available intravenous analgesic options in postoperative pain management currently available in the United States.

Available Classes Pain Levels Common Limitations & Contraindications

IV narcotics Moderate to severe Strong sedation

Respiratory depression

Constipation

Risk of dependence

IV NSAIDS Mild to severe Post-op bleeding risk

GI side effects

Renal impairment

IV acetaminophen Mild to moderate Hepatic impairment

Our Product Candidate

Tramadol, a synthetic dual-acting opioid, is a centrally acting analgesic with weak opioid agonist properties. It also works via the inhibition of serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake and blocking nociceptive impulses at the spinal level. These opioid and non-opioid modes of action are synergistic, essentially providing “multimodal therapy” with the use of a single drug. Tramadol is also commonly combined with APAP or NSAIDS in clinical practice. Tramadol has a well-established efficacy and safety profile and has been used throughout the world for more than 30 years. In the United States, tramadol is approved and marketed as an oral agent indicated in adults for the management of pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. Tramadol was first approved in the United States in 1995, under the trade name Ultram® immediate release tablet (Ortho-McNeil-Janssen). Ultracet®, a combination product containing tramadol and acetaminophen, is also marketed in the United States (Ortho-McNeil-Janssen). According to Symphony Health Solutions, approximately 30 million scripts for tramadol and tramadol-containing drugs were filled in retail pharmacies in the United States in 2020.

Table of Contents

Tramadol has low potential for abuse and addiction and is currently classified by the DEA as a Schedule IV controlled substance. For comparison, other opioids which have a high potential for abuse, including meperidine, morphine, hydromorphone and oxycodone, are all classified as Schedule II controlled substances.

The clinical trials from our development program are summarized below:

Advantages of IV Tramadol

Parenteral tramadol is approved and used for the management of postoperative acute pain throughout much of the world. Parenteral formulations include IV, intramuscular, or IM, and subcutaneous, or SC, formulations. Based on our review of IMS Health data from 2014 to 2016, we believe that parenteral tramadol accounts for approximately 10% of the total IV analgesics used in Europe. During the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, approximately 370 million doses of parenteral tramadol were used in Europe, according to data from IQVIA (a 3rd party data provider). There is no parenteral formulation currently approved in the United States.

We believe that the introduction of an IV formulation of tramadol in the United States will address many of the shortcomings of opioids, APAP and NSAIDs currently used in the postoperative setting.

We administered IV Tramadol over approximately 15 minutes in our Phase 3 trials. We believe that our method of administration of IV Tramadol may provide significant benefits such as reduced side effects, compared to previously approved methods of administration of IV Tramadol in Europe, which is typically accomplished via a slow push over 2 to 3 minutes. In addition, our IV Tramadol dosing regimen produces a similar Cmax (maximal blood level) and AUC (overall systemic exposure) to those of oral tramadol at steady state, which we believe ensures an easy transition from IV to oral therapy in the post-surgical setting.

Based on the trials done in Europe and on the data generated with oral tramadol, we believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will be an attractive option for physicians who treat postoperative pain in the U.S., due to the following attributes:

Table of Contents

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will be a useful and effective tool in the management of acute postoperative pain. Its potential advantages compared to current standard-of-care agents, along with the known efficacy, safety and tolerability profile for oral tramadol support the use of IV Tramadol in this setting. We believe that the risks associated with the use of IV Tramadol will be benign compared to other opioids, and consistent with that of the currently marketed oral tramadol products. Consequently, with the industry trend toward multimodal therapy and away from Schedule II narcotics, we believe that, if approved, IV Tramadol’s unique profile could position it to become an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options in the management of postoperative pain.

Clinical Development History

Revogenex, the previous Sponsor and Licensor, completed multiple nonclinical PK and toxicology studies in dogs, a Phase 1 dose proportionality study and a thorough QT/QTc (“TQT”) study of IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers, or the TQT Study. The dose proportionality study was designed to compare maximum exposure and cumulative exposures of IV Tramadol to that of oral tramadol, and to assess the dose proportionality of IV Tramadol in healthy adult volunteers. The TQT Study was done to evaluate whether IV Tramadol has the potential to affect the “corrected QT interval”, or QTc, in healthy volunteers. The QTc represents electrical depolarization and repolarization of the heart ventricles. A lengthened QTc is a marker for the potential of ventricular arrhythmias. The results of these studies are consistent with tramadol’s known toxicology profile, pharmacokinetics and pharmacology.

PK Study for IV Tramadol

In general, Phase 2 clinical trials include initial proof-of-concept efficacy studies, dose-finding studies, and initial safety assessments in the target (i.e., to-be-treated) population. We did not conduct Phase 2 clinical trials for IV Tramadol because tramadol is a known analgesic, and oral tramadol is labeled “for the management of pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate” in the United States. Instead, we completed pharmacokinetic (“PK”) simulations and conducted a pharmacokinetic and safety study in healthy volunteers, in order to select a Phase 3 dose and dosing regimen designed to achieve exposure to tramadol similar to that provided by oral tramadol. In 2016, we completed a PK study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers. A PK study generally involves dosing an experimental medicine in healthy volunteers and taking a series of blood measurements from the study participants to understand how the body handles the drug. A PK study provides information on important parameters such as systemic exposure, maximal and minimal levels of drug concentration in the blood and their time courses. The PK study we conducted was used to select a dose and dosing regimen of IV Tramadol that achieves similar exposure to that provided by oral tramadol at steady state.

The PK study was designed as a three-way cross over study in 18 healthy volunteers. Each subject in the study served as his/her own control and received oral tramadol as well as two different doses of IV Tramadol. Based on the results of the PK study, we decided to use a 50 mg dose in our pivotal Phase 3 program.

Our Clinical Development Strategy for IV Tramadol

At our EOP2 meeting with FDA, we discussed Phase 3 program requirements for IV Tramadol and confirmed the key elements of the Phase 3 program design. We conducted two pivotal Phase 3 trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV Tramadol, and one additional safety study. All three trials enrolled patients who required IV analgesia following surgery. Over 1,000 patients were enrolled in the Phase 3 program. We believe that the design of our Phase 3 program is consistent with the design of Phase 3 programs for other analgesics being developed.

Postoperative pain following bunionectomy (orthopedic surgery model). The first Phase 3 trial was conducted in patients undergoing bunionectomy surgery, which is considered an orthopedic surgical model. 409 patients were randomized and treated in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of two doses of IV Tramadol, or placebo, for 48 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint was Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 48 hours (SPID 48), which is a measure of the overall effectiveness of the drug in reducing pain intensity during the 48-hour period. This trial commenced in the third quarter of 2017. In May 2018, we announced the trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints.

Postoperative pain following abdominoplasty (soft tissue model). The second Phase 3 safety and efficacy trial was conducted in patients undergoing abdominoplasty surgery, which is considered a soft-tissue surgical model. 370 patients were randomized and treated in a 3:3:2 ratio to IV Tramadol, placebo or a standard-of-care comparator arm. The primary efficacy endpoint was Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 24 hours (SPID 24). The trial commenced in December 2018. In June 2019, we announced the trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints.

Table of Contents

Open-label safety study. We initiated the safety study in December 2017 and ran this study concurrently with the two Phase 3 trials. 251 patients were enrolled in the safety study, which had an open label, single arm design. We completed this study in May 2019 and the results showed that IV Tramadol was well-tolerated in multiple surgical models with a side effect profile consistent with known pharmacology.

License Agreement with Revogenex Ireland Ltd.

Effective as of February 17, 2015, Fortress obtained a worldwide (with the exception of Canada, Central America and South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV Tramadol HCl injections) exclusive license to make, market and sell IV Tramadol pursuant to an agreement with Revogenex, a privately held company in Dublin, Ireland, or the License Agreement. Under the terms of the License Agreement, Fortress paid Revogenex an up-front licensing fee of $2.0 million upon execution and an additional $1.0 million on June 17, 2015. A $1.0 million milestone payment was due upon NDA submission in December 2019 which was incurred by us. There is also an additional milestone totaling $3.0 million due upon the FDA approval of IV Tramadol. Additional high single-digit to low double-digit royalty payments on net sales of licensed products are due. Royalties will be paid on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the expiration in each country of the valid patent claim. In return, Fortress obtained the exclusive worldwide rights to three U.S. patents related to the “Intravenous Administration of Tramadol”: U.S. Patent No. 8,895,622 (the ’622 patent), which issued on November 25, 2014; U.S. Patent No. 9,561,195 (the ’195 patent), which issued on February 7, 2017; and U.S. Patent No. 9,566,253 (the ’253 patent), which issued on February 14, 2017 (all with the exception of Canada, Central America and South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV Tramadol HCl injections). Additionally, Fortress acquired the rights to an open U.S. Investigational New Drug Application pertaining to IV Tramadol, as well as all supporting documentation and relevant correspondence with the FDA. Further, under the License Agreement, Fortress assumed the rights and obligations of Revogenex under its current manufacturing agreement with Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma (Polpharma), or the Manufacturing Agreement. Fortress transferred all its rights and obligations under the License Agreement and the Manufacturing Agreement to us pursuant to an Asset Transfer Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015.

The License Agreement will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, unless the agreement is earlier terminated. In addition to standard early termination provisions, the License Agreement may also be terminated early by: (i) Revogenex if the FDA does not issue an approval or otherwise issues a “not approvable” notice for the NDA within 27 months after the NDA has been filed with the FDA (December 2019), although this termination right will be tolled if we are using commercial reasonable efforts in our negotiations with the FDA for approval and if we receive a “not approvable” notice (October 2020), we will have a 15 month period to correct any issues and re-submit the NDA for approval, (ii) us if we reasonably determine prior to NDA approval that the development of IV Tramadol is not economically viable, or (iii) either Revogenex or us (provided we are using or have used commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize IV Tramadol) if, after the third anniversary date of the commercial launch, we fail to achieve annual net sales with respect to IV Tramadol of at least $20 million in any given calendar year, with certain exceptions.

Table of Contents

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis of proprietary products. We face competition and potential competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. In addition, companies that are active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Many of our competitors have significantly greater capital resources, larger research and development staffs and facilities and greater experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing and marketing than we do. These organizations also compete with us to recruit qualified personnel, attract partners for joint ventures or other collaborations, and license technologies that are competitive with ours. To compete successfully in this industry, we must identify novel and unique drugs or methods of treatment and then complete the development of those drugs as treatments before our competitors do so.

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will compete with a number of opioid and non-opioid drugs that are currently available for the management of acute pain or in development. The most commonly used opioids in the postoperative and acute pain settings are morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl. The non-opioid drugs used in this setting include Ofirmev (IV acetaminophen) and IV formulations of NSAIDs such as Dyloject (diclofenac), Toradol (ketorolac), Anjeso (meloxicam) and Caldolor (ibuprofen). In addition, we also expect to compete with agents such as Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), Zynrelef (bupivacaine and meloxicam) and Xaracoll (bupivacaine implant).

In addition to approved products, there are a number of product candidates in development for the management of acute pain. In addition to reformulations and fixed-dose combination products of already available therapies, there are also several novel agents in clinical development such as NTM-001 (Neumentum, Inc.) and CA-008 (Concentric Analgesics, Inc.).

Intellectual Property and Patents

General

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our proprietary technologies, including methods of treatment, to preserve our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents in the United States.

Patents and other proprietary rights are crucial to the development of our business. We will be able to protect our proprietary technologies from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary rights are covered by valid and enforceable patents, are supported by regulatory exclusivity or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. We have several patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, but we cannot guarantee the scope of protection of the issued patents, or that such patents will survive a validity or enforceability challenge, or that any of the pending patent applications will issue as patents.

Generally, patent applications in the United States are maintained in secrecy for a period of 18 months or more. The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Therefore, we cannot predict the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents, or their enforceability. To date, there has been no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents. Third parties or competitors may challenge or circumvent our patents or patent applications, if issued. If our competitors prepare and file patent applications in the United States that claim technology also claimed by us, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In the case of inventorship contests relating to patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, we may have to participate in derivation proceedings initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which could also result in substantial cost. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that before we commercialize any of our products, any related patent may expire or remain in existence for only a short period following commercialization, thus reducing any advantage of the patent. However, the life of a patent covering a product that has been subject to regulatory approval may have the ability be extended through the patent restoration program, although any such extension could still be minimal.

Table of Contents

If a patent is issued to a third party containing one or more preclusive or conflicting claims, and those claims are ultimately determined to be valid and enforceable, we may be required to obtain a license under such patent or to develop or obtain alternative technology, neither of which may be possible. In the event of litigation involving a third-party claim, an adverse outcome in the litigation could subject us to significant liabilities to such third party, require us to seek a license for the disputed rights from such third party, and/or require us to cease use of the technology. Moreover, our breach of an existing license or failure to obtain a license to technology required to commercialize our products may seriously harm our business. We also may need to commence litigation to enforce any patents issued to us or to determine the scope and validity of third party proprietary rights. Litigation would involve substantial costs.

IV Tramadol

Pursuant to the License Agreement described above, we have exclusive, worldwide commercialization rights to all Revogenex patents, including patent applications, divisionals, continuations, and continuations-in-part, that are directed to IV tramadol (with the exception of Canada, Central America, or South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV tramadol HCl injections). Currently, this includes U.S. Patent No. 8,895,622 (“the ’622 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,561,195 (“the ’195 patent”), U.S. Patent 9,566,253 (“the ’253 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,962,343 (“the ’343 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,406,122 (“the ’122 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,693,949 (“the ’949 patent”), U.S. Patent 9,968,551 (“the ’551 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,980,900 (“the ’900 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,022,321 (“the ’321 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,537,521 (“the ’521 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,624,842 (“the ’842 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,751,279 (the ‘279 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,729,644 (the ‘644 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,022,321 (“the ‘321 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,537,521 (“the ‘521 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,646,433 (“the ‘433 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,617,635 (“the ‘635 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,729,645 (”the ‘645 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,7512,277 (“the ‘277 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,751,278 (“the ‘278 patent”), and any related patent applications or future patents, including divisionals, continuations, and continuations-in-part.

The ’622 patent is directed to and claims methods of: treating pain by administering a therapeutically effective dose of tramadol intravenously over a time period from 10 minutes to about 45 minutes (i.e., the rate of IV Tramadol administration); treating pain in humans by intravenously administering tramadol in solution at a range of concentrations over the same time period; treating acute pain in humans by administering IV Tramadol over 10 to 30 minutes, such that at least one side effect is reduced; and treating acute postoperative pain by administering tramadol to a human patient intra-operatively at wound closure, or from first demand of analgesia postoperatively, intravenously over a time period from 10 to 30 minutes, in conjunction with administering further tramadol doses post-operatively and administering a different intravenous opioid analgesic which is not tramadol. Further claims of the ’622 patent are directed to various effective doses, including 50 mg. These methods of treatment may provide significant benefits (e.g., reduced side effects) over previously approved methods of administration of IV Tramadol, in which the dose was typically accomplished over a two to three-minute period. Additional claims of the ’622 patent focus on the intravenous administration of tramadol over 15 (±2) minutes, which represents the preferred method of administration that we will be pursuing in obtaining approval of our product through the FDA. The ’622 patent further describes and claims pharmacokinetic properties of our proprietary method of treatment (e.g., Tmax, Cmax and AUC), which are different from the previously achieved pharmacokinetics of prior IV tramadol formulations, such as Tramal® solution for injection (available outside the U.S.). This patent is scheduled to expire on October 20, 2032, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions.

In view of additional prior art discovered after the issuance of the ’622 patent, we have focused efforts on obtaining further patent coverage for the technology. Pursuant to the License Agreement, we have exclusive commercialization rights to all continuation patent filings of the ’622 patent. As a first step, we have prosecuted further claims in multiple continuation patent applications of the ’622 patent, in which extensive searches were conducted and all information known to be material to patentability was brought to the attention of the USPTO. The goal was to obtain further patent claims which patentably differentiate over the prior art. To date, our efforts have resulted in the issuance of the ’195 patent, which issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/550,279 on February 7, 2017; the ’253 patent, which issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/713,775 on February 14, 2017; the ’343 patent, which issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/550,279 on May 8, 2018; and the ’122 patent, which issued from U.S Application Serial No. 15/972,684 on September 10, 2019; all of which are entitled “Intravenous Administration of Tramadol,” and all of which contain the same disclosure (specification) as that of the ’622 patent. The ’195, ’253, ’343 and ’122 patents are scheduled to expire on the same day as the expiration of the ’622 patent (October 20, 2032 absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

The ’253 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain in a human patient by a dose of about 50 mg of IV Tramadol over a time period from 10 minutes to 20 minutes and administering further doses of tramadol at two to six-hour time intervals (each dose being administered intravenously over the same time period).

The ’343 patent includes claims directed to similar subject matter but varies from the ’253 patent in that it specifically claims treating acute post-operative pain. There is also a continuation patent application pending with the USPTO.

Table of Contents

The ’195 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain by administering to a human patient a dose of about 50 mg of IV Tramadol over 10 to 20 minutes, and administering further doses of IV Tramadol at two to six hour time intervals to treat pain in said patient, (each dose administered over 10 to 20 minutes), such that the Cmax does not exceed the Cmax of 100 mg oral tramadol administered every six hours for nine doses. The term Cmax refers to the maximum plasma concentration of tramadol achieved during a dosing interval. The claims of the ’195 patent therefore further focus on a goal of the technology — that the blood plasma levels of tramadol resulting from our 50 mg intravenous dose to a patient would not be significantly greater than the blood plasma level of the blood plasma levels of tramadol that are already routinely experienced by patients in the United States who are administered oral doses of 100 mg tramadol. Tramadol hydrochloride is approved in the United States for oral administration in an amount from 50 mg to 100 mg administered every four to six hours, not to exceed 400 mg/day.

The ’122 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain or acute post-operative pain by administering to a human patient undergoing an operation a dose of about 50 mg of tramadol at about 2 to about 6 hour time intervals for at least about 48 hours to treat pain in said patient, wherein each dose of tramadol is administered intravenously over a time period from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, such that the patient is treated for acute postoperative pain. Further claims call for at least one dose of tramadol to be administered over 15 (±2) minutes.

The ’253, ’195, ’343 and ’122 patents include further claims to the treatment method, including also administering one or more doses of an IV opioid analgesic that is not tramadol as rescue medicine to the patient to treat breakthrough pain. The claims are further directed to the use of the treatment method for postoperative pain, and claims in the ’195, ’343, and ’122 patents are also directed to the treatment method resulting in a reduction in a side-effect associated with tramadol therapy selected from nausea, vomiting, or both.

The '278 and '277 patents are directed to the treatment method, for example, where acute pain is treated.

Other patents are directed to tramadol doses other than about 50 mg. For example, the patents include the '279 patent and the '433 patent (about 60 mg tramadol), and the '521 patent and the '321 patent (about 25 mg tramadol).

The '645, '644, and '635 patents are directed to various aspects of the treatment method wherein tramadol is co-administered with another analgesic: ketorolac (the '645 patent), another analgesic selected from NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and another opioid (the '644 patent), or acetaminophen (the '635 patent).

We believe that the administration of, e.g., a 50 mg IV Tramadol dose over the prolonged time interval is efficacious and also may advantageously lead to a lower incidence of side effects and increased drug tolerability. Additionally, we believe that the claims of these patents patentably differentiate over all prior art that we are aware of and which was made of record with the USPTO.

The License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to the ’949 patent and any related patent applications or future patents, including divisionals, continuations, and continuations-in-part. The ’949 patent is directed to an IV Tramadol dosing regimen and issued on July 4, 2017. This new patent describes and claims a dosing regimen in which our IV Tramadol product is dosed to a human patient(s) for treating acute pain in a manner such that the plasma levels obtained (including but not limited to Cmax and AUC) are very similar to treatment with a 100 mg oral dose of tramadol hydrochloride to a human patient(s) every six hours at steady state. This is accomplished by intravenously administering a first dose of tramadol 50 mg to a human patient; then intravenously administering a second dose of tramadol 50 mg about 2 hours after the first dose; intravenously administering a third dose of tramadol 50 mg about 2 hours after the second dose; and thereafter intravenously administering doses of tramadol 50 mg at dosage intervals of about 4 hours. It is believed that this dosing regimen may provide advantages over the commercially available oral doing regimen, and further allows the patient to be stepped down from the IV Tramadol dosing regimen to an oral dosing regimen with less concern about deleterious effects which might occur from a switch from IV to oral analgesic medicine (e.g., as would be the case where the switch to an oral version of the drug provides a much different Cmax and AUC than the IV dose provides at steady state). This new dosing regimen is the result of considerable experimentation by us, and a prior art search has not revealed any similar dosing regimen being used or published with respect to IV Tramadol infusions. The patent term of the ’949 patent is scheduled to expire on May 24, 2036, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions.

A continuation of the ’949 patent issued as the ’551 patent on May 18, 2018, claiming the same dosing regimen except that it includes claims that specify that the mean Cmax after the third administered dose of tramadol is similar to the mean Cmax at steady-state for a dosing regimen of 100 mg tramadol HCl administered orally every 6 hours, and/or specifies pharmacokinetic parameters for Cmax and/or AUC at steady-state. The ’551 patent is scheduled to expire on the same day as the ’949 patent (May 24, 2036, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

Table of Contents

The ’900 patent (a continuation-in-part of the ’949 patent) issued on May 29, 2018 and is directed to the same dosing regimen, except that it includes claims that specify the pharmacokinetic parameters after the third administered dose of tramadol. Further continuation patent applications are pending for (i) the 50 mg dosing regimen to human patients experiencing acute pain or acute post-operative pain; (ii) the 50 mg dosing regimen directed to administering a first dose of tramadol 50 mg to a human patient and thereafter intravenously administering additional doses of tramadol to the human patient(s) in an amount of about 50 mg tramadol at dosage intervals of about 4 hours, except that a second dose is intravenously administered as a loading dose at a shortened interval as compared to the dosage interval of about 4 hours, and (iii) administering the 50 mg dosing regimen as described with an NSAID as well. The ’900 patent is scheduled to expire on the same day as the ’949 patent (May 24, 2036, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

The License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to continuation applications of the ’949, ’551, and ’900 patents (and related applications) that are currently pending at the USPTO. This includes, but is not limited to, U.S. Application Serial No. 15/976,503 (“the ’503 application”), a continuation of the ’551 patent and filed on May 10, 2018; U.S. Application Serial No. 16/223,522 (“the ’522 application”), a continuation of the ’199 application and filed on December 18, 2018; U.S. Application Serial No. 15/986,199 (“the ’199 application”), a continuation of the ’900 patent and filed on May 22, 2018; and U.S. Application Serial No. 16/223,556 (“the ’556 application”), a continuation of the ’503 application and filed on December 18, 2018. The ’503, ’522, and ’199 applications are directed to various dosing regimens for intravenous administration of a 50 mg dose of tramadol. The ’556 application is directed to various dosing regimens for intravenous administration of a 60 mg dose of tramadol.

The License Agreement further grants us exclusive commercialization rights to new patents/patent applications pending with the USPTO directed to the intravenous administration of tramadol co-administered with other analgesics. Currently, these patent applications include U.S. Application Serial No. 16/269,213 (“the ’213 application”, now the ‘279 patent), a continuation of the ’556 application and filed February 6, 2019; U.S. Application Serial No. 16/269,124 (“the ’124 application”; now U.S. Patent No. 10,729,644), a continuation of the ’522 application and filed on February 6, 2019; U.S. Application Serial No. 16/375,363 (“the ’363 application”, now the ‘635 patent), a continuation of the ’213 application and filed on April 4, 2019 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,751,279); and U.S. Application Serial No. 16/376,382 (“the ’382 application”, now the ‘645 patent), a continuation of the ’213 application and filed on April 5, 2019. The ’213 application is directed to intravenously administering a first dose of 60 mg of tramadol, later administering doses every 6 hours (except for the second dose, which is a loading dose administered in a shorter time period), and also administering another analgesic. The ’124 application (now the ‘644 patent) is similar, but it claims a dosage of 50 mg. The ’363 application is also similar to the ’213 application, in that it claims 60 mg, but it varies in that it specifies acetaminophen as the other analgesic. The ’382 application is similar to the ’124 application, in that it claims 50 mg, but it varies in that it specifies ketorolac as the other analgesic.

The License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to the ’321 patent, which is directed to an IV Tramadol dosing regimen and issued on July 17, 2018. This new patent describes and claims a dosing regimen in which our IV Tramadol product is dosed to a human patient(s) for treating acute pain by intravenously administering a first dose of tramadol 25 mg to a human patient; then intravenously administering a second dose of tramadol 25 mg about 2 hours after the first dose; intravenously administering a third dose of tramadol 25 mg about 2 hours after the second dose; and thereafter intravenously administering doses of tramadol 25 mg at dosage intervals of about 4 hours. The ’321 patent is scheduled to expire on April 13, 2037, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions.

A continuation of the ’321 patent issued as the ’521 patent on January 21, 2020, claiming the same dosage as the ’321 patent (25 mg), but over dosing intervals of about 4 hours, where the second dose is intravenously administered as a loading dose at a shortened interval as compared to the interval of about 4 hours. It further claims this method of treatment, where the at least one side effect, selected from nausea, vomiting, and seizure, is reduced. The ’521 patent is scheduled to expire on the same day as the ’321 patent (April 13, 2037, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

With the exception of 50 mg and 100 mg dosages of IV tramadol HCl in Canada, Central America, and South America, the License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to certain foreign patents and patent applications, including PCT applications. With the exception of the territory constraint listed above, we have the exclusive commercialization rights to PCT Application No. US/2012/033304 and any related patents or patent applications.

In sum, we believe that our patent filings will prevent third parties from marketing a generic version of our product without infringing claims of the patent(s) we are seeking. Further, we have conducted clearance searches of U.S. issued and foreign patents, and have not identified any bars to the commercialization of our tramadol technology.

Table of Contents

Other Intellectual Property Rights

We depend upon trademarks, trade secrets, and continuing technological advances to develop and maintain our competitive position. We also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. This knowledge and experience we call “know-how.” To help protect our proprietary know-how which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all employees, scientific advisors, consultants, collaborators and other contractors, upon commencement of a relationship with us, to enter into confidentiality agreements, which prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, in the case of parties other than our research and development collaborators, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed in connection with their relationship with us. These agreements may not, however, provide protection for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized disclosure of such information.

Supply and Manufacturing

The chemical name for tramadol hydrochloride is cis-2-[(dimethyl amino) methyl]-1-(3-methyoxyphenyl) cyclohexanol hydrochloride. Unless otherwise specified, the term tramadol refers to the racemic mixture of the (±) cis isomers. IV Tramadol (Tramadol Hydrochloride Injection) is a sterile solution formulation of tramadol HCl 50 mg/1 mL, for IV administration. Each unit of IV Tramadol consists of glass ampoules of 50 mg of tramadol HCl and sodium acetate as buffering agent in 1 mL of water for injection. The final drug product is stable at room temperature.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of IV Tramadol, nor do we have plans to develop or own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. Currently, we have one manufacturer, Polpharma, who subcontracts several activities to another manufacturer, to provide us clinical and commercial supply of IV Tramadol in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements. We also may plan to qualify a backup manufacturer. We will be obligated to purchase a minimum amount of final packaged drug product from our current manufacturer over the course of five years commencing upon the approval of our NDA for IV Tramadol. We will pay a fixed per dose unit fee to our current manufacturer in addition to a low single digit royalty on net sales revenue and a milestone payment amount of $2.0 million upon FDA approval of IV Tramadol.

We and our manufacturer, as well as its key subcontractor, are and will be subject to extensive government regulation in connection with the manufacture of any pharmaceutical product, including ongoing periodic and unannounced inspections by the FDA, the DEA and corresponding state, European and other foreign agencies to ensure strict compliance with CGMPs and other applicable state, federal and foreign regulations. We do not have control over third party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards, other than through contractual obligations and audit oversight. If they are deemed out of compliance with CGMPs, product recalls could result, inventory could be destroyed, production could be stopped and supplies could be delayed or otherwise disrupted.

If we need to change manufacturers after commercialization, the FDA and some corresponding foreign regulatory agencies must approve these new manufacturers in advance, which will involve testing and additional inspections to ensure compliance with CGMPs and other FDA regulations and standards and may require significant lead times and delay. Furthermore, switching manufacturers may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited. It may be difficult or impossible for us to find a replacement manufacturer quickly or on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

Government and Industry Regulations

General

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. Since our drug product candidate is an opioid, such drugs are also regulated by the DEA as controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, even at the drug development stage. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approval and maintaining subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during product development, the approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold,

Table of Contents

untitled or warning letters, voluntary product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, consent decrees, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil and criminal penalties. Any regulatory, compliance or enforcement action by any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our products, or our Company. If we fail to manufacture our product candidate in sufficient quantities and at acceptable quality and pricing levels, fail to comply with additional DEA requirements related to controlled substances, or fail to fully comply with CGMP regulations, we may face delays in the commercialization of this product candidate or be unable to meet market demand, and may be unable to generate potential revenues.

Our product candidate must be approved by the FDA through one of FDA’s available drug approval processes before they may be legally marketed in the United States – (1) an NDA submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; (2) an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) under section 505(j); or (3) a new drug application submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA (505(b)(2) application). We have already submitted our first 505(b)(2) application and intend to utilize the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway for any additional product candidates. Development and approval of drugs generally involves the following:

· Submission of an application (NDA, ANDA or 505(b)(2)) to the FDA;

· FDA review and approval of the NDA.

The nonclinical testing, clinical trials and review process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. The data required to support an NDA are generated in two distinct developmental stages: nonclinical and clinical. The nonclinical development stage generally involves synthesizing the active component, developing the formulation and control procedures and determining the manufacturing process, as well as carrying out non-human toxicology, pharmacology and drug metabolism studies in the laboratory, which may support subsequent clinical testing in humans. In the case of documentation to support a 505(b)(2) NDA, this nonclinical data may be referenced in literature or the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a listed drug. The sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers and patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB for each institution where the trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

Table of Contents

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the management of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Before approval, progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important rate increase of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or the use of the drug raises any safety concerns. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose specified clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. However, there are evolving rules and increasing requirements for publication of all trial-related information, and it is possible that data and other information from trials involving drugs that never garner approval could require disclosure in the future.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing it 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, a drug manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. 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.

NDA and FDA Review Process

The results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including extensive information on manufacturing and drug composition and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a drug is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with CGMPs to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be legally marketed in the United States.

Table of Contents

Under the PDUFA as amended in 2017, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s current fee schedule for fiscal year (FY) 2022, effective through September 30, 2022, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, is $3,117,218. Clinical data, as interpreted by the FDA to assess fees under PDUFA, include (1) study reports or literature reports of what are explicitly or implicitly represented by the applicant to be adequate and well-controlled trials for safety or effectiveness or (2) reports of comparative activity (other than bioequivalence and bioavailability studies), immunogenicity, or efficacy, where those reports are necessary to support a claim of comparable clinical effect. The term does not include bioequivalence and bioavailability studies submitted in support of an NDA. NDAs for which clinical data are not required to demonstrate safety and effectiveness are reduced to half of the amount of the prescribed user fee, or $1,558,609 for FY 2022. PDUFA also imposes an annual Prescription Drug Program Fee ($369,413 per approved product for FY 2022) for establishments named as the applicant in a human drug application. An establishment is not to be assessed more than five (5) prescription drug program fees in a given fiscal year. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business.

The FDA performs an administrative review of an NDA before accepting it for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the applications. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth scientific and technical review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an NDA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with CGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with CGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product to specifications. The FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation regarding whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers them carefully when making decisions. NDAs submitted under Section 505(b)(2) are typically not referred to an Advisory Panel for consideration unless new safety information is revealed in the review cycle. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA, and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial, and other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may 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 the sponsor interprets the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will approve a product candidate for marketing, and the sponsor may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or it may condition approval on changes to the proposed labeling. The FDA also may condition approval on the development of adequate controls and specifications for manufacturing and a commitment to conduct post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the potential effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and efficacy.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approval including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides,

Table of Contents

physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Section 505(b)(2) Regulatory Approval Pathway

Section 505(b)(2) was added to the Act by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA provides an alternate regulatory pathway for approval of a new drug by allowing the FDA to rely on data not developed by the applicant. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where one or more of the investigations relied upon by the applicant for approval was not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely upon published literature and/or the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved drug already on the market. Approval or submission of a 505(b)(2) application, like those for abbreviated new drugs, or ANDAs, may be delayed because of patent and/or exclusivity rights that apply to the previously approved drug.

Under the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, the applicant may reduce some of the burdens of developing a full clinical program by relying on investigations not conducted by the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, such as prior investigations involving the listed drug. In such cases, some clinical trials may not be required or may be otherwise limited.

A 505(b)(2) application may be submitted for a new chemical entity (NCE), when some part of the data necessary for approval is derived from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and when the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Such data are typically derived from published studies, rather than FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness of a previously approved drug. For changes to a previously approved drug however, an applicant may rely on the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness of the approved drug, coupled with information needed to support the change from the approved drug, such as new studies conducted by the applicant or published data. When based on an approved drug, the 505(b)(2) drug may be approved for all of the indications permitted for the approved drug, as well as any other indication supported by additional data.

Section 505(b)(2) applications also may be entitled to marketing exclusivity if supported by appropriate data and information. As discussed in more detail below, three-year new data exclusivity may be granted to the 505(b)(2) application if one or more clinical investigations conducted in support of the application, other than bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, were essential to the approval and conducted or sponsored by the applicant. Five years of marketing exclusivity may be granted if the application is for an NCE, and pediatric exclusivity is likewise available.

Orange Book Listing and Paragraph IV Certification

For NDA submissions, including 505(b)(2) applications, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents with claims that cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval, each of the patents listed in the application is published in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the Orange Book. Any applicant who subsequently files an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application that references a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV certification.

If an applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the approved drug and the patent owner once 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 notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the earlier of 30 months from the date of the lawsuit, the applicant’s successful defense of the suit, or expiration of the patent.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation in which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers.

Table of Contents

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, which was signed into law on July 9, 2012, amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit an NDA for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric trial(s) that the sponsor plans to conduct, including objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such information and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric trials. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP, but the 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 nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and other clinical development programs.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval, the company and the new product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, which include monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include prohibitions on the promotion of the drugs for unapproved, or “off-label” uses. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label treatments, manufacturers may not promote such non-FDA approved uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use on an on-going basis. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes to indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a supplemental NDA or new NDA, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials.

The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with CGMPs. These regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from CGMPs. 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 are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with CGMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with CGMPs. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to CGMPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including voluntary recalls and product seizures.

Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrections to advertising or communications to doctors and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. New government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

The FDCA provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, for a drug product that contains a previously approved NCE if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, were essential to the application’s approval (e.g., for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug). This three-year exclusivity for new data 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 agent for the original indication. Furthermore, this 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.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States, which, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protections or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request.” The FDA issues a written request for pediatric clinical trials before approval of an NDA only where it determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population.

Table of Contents

DEA Regulation

Because our product candidate is subject to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) we must comply with various statutory requirements set forth by the CSA, as amended, and its implementing regulations as enforced by the DEA. The CSA imposes various registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, procurement and manufacturing quotas, labeling and packaging requirements, security controls, prescription and order form requirements and restrictions on prescription refills for certain kinds of pharmaceutical products. A principal factor for determining the particular requirements of the CSA applicable to a product, if any, is its actual or potential abuse profile, which is classified into a DEA schedule. A product may be listed as a Schedule I, II, III, IV or V controlled substance, with Schedule I presenting the highest perceived risk of abuse and Schedule V presenting the least. For example, Schedule I controlled substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The active ingredient in our product candidate is classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances and less stringent requirements for Schedules III, IV, and V. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as vaults and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because the active ingredient in our product candidate is currently regulated as a Schedule IV controlled substances, it will not be subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme.

To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action. The DEA 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.

In addition to federal scheduling, some drugs may be subject to state-controlled substance regulation and thus more extensive requirements than those determined by the DEA and FDA.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, the DEA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

We will also be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

Table of Contents

The ACA broadened the reach of the fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-7b. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As noted above, the federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment from federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under the federal False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for such violations could include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, mandatory civil penalties between $10,781 and $21,563 for each separate false claim, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and the potential implication of various federal criminal statutes. Private individuals also have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act, or qui tam actions, and certain states have enacted laws based on the federal False Claims Act.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state health care legislation and regulations, including any changes, repeal, or judicial invalidation of some or all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and further changes in the law or regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Table of Contents

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Employees

As of December 31, 2021, we had 4 full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union and we consider our employee relations to be good.

Item 1A.Risk Factors

The following information sets forth risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements we have made in this Form 10-K and those we may make from time to time. You should carefully consider the risks described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Form 10-K, before making an investment decision. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be harmed by any of these risks. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or other factors not perceived by us to present significant risks to our business at this time also may impair our business operations.

Risks Pertaining to Our Stockholders Agreement with InvaGen Pharmaceuticals

While the SPMA has been terminated, InvaGen retains certain rights pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement between us and InvaGen. These rights exist as long as InvaGen maintains at least 75% of the common shares acquired in the first stage closing. The following are some of the actions that shall not be taken without the prior written consent of InvaGen:

· increase in authorized shares of our stock;

Risks Pertaining to the Influence of Fortress

Fortress controls a voting majority of our common stock.

Pursuant to the terms of the Class A Preferred Stock held by Fortress, Fortress will be entitled to cast, for each share of Class A Preferred Stock held by Fortress, the number of votes that is equal to 1.1 times a fraction, the numerator of which is the sum of (A) the aggregate number of shares of outstanding common stock and (B) the whole shares of common stock into which the shares of outstanding the Class A Preferred Stock are convertible and the denominator of which is the aggregate number of shares of outstanding Class A Preferred Stock, or the Class A Preferred Stock Ratio. Thus, Fortress will at all times have voting control of us. Further, for a period of ten years from the date of the first issuance of shares of Class A Preferred Stock, the holders of record of the shares of Class A Preferred Stock (or other capital stock or securities issued upon conversion of or in exchange for the Class A Preferred Stock), exclusively and as a separate class, shall be entitled to appoint or elect the majority of our directors.

Table of Contents

At such time (if ever) as InvaGen no longer holds at least 75% of the Avenue shares it received in its initial 2019 equity subscription, Fortress would have the right to receive a significant grant of shares of our common stock annually, which would result in the dilution of your holdings of common stock upon each grant, which could reduce their value.

Under the terms of the Amended and Restated Founders Agreement, which became effective September 13, 2016, Fortress is entitled to receive a grant of shares of our common stock equal to 2.5% of the gross amount of any equity or debt financing. Additionally, the holders of Class A Preferred Stock, as a class, are to receive an annual dividend, payable in shares of common stock in an amount equal to 2.5% of our fully-diluted outstanding capital stock as of the business day immediately prior to the date such dividend is payable. Fortress currently owns all outstanding shares of Class A Preferred Stock. At our Annual Meeting of the Stockholder’s held on June 13, 2018, the Company’s shareholders approved an amendment to the Company’s Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, amending the Class A Preferred dividend payment date from February 17 to January 1 of each year. Fortress’ right to receive this dividend was contractually waived in connection with the Waiver and Termination Agreement signed on November 12, 2018 between Avenue, Fortress and InvaGen, but Fortress’ right to receive such dividend will be revived at such time (if ever) as InvaGen no longer holds at least 75% of the Avenue shares it received in its initial 2019 equity subscription. These potential future share issuances to Fortress and any other holder of Class A Preferred Stock will dilute your holdings in our common stock and, if our value has not grown proportionately over the prior year, would result in a reduction in the value of your shares. The Amended and Restated Founders Agreement has a term of 15 years and renews automatically for subsequent one-year periods unless terminated by Fortress or upon a Change in Control (as defined in the Amended and Restated Founders Agreement).

We might have received better terms from unaffiliated third parties than the terms we receive in our agreements with Fortress.

The agreements we entered into with Fortress in connection with the separation include the Management Services Agreement, or the MSA, and the Founders Agreement. While we believe the terms of these agreements are reasonable, they might not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements relate to, among other things, payment of a royalty on product sales and the provision of employment and transition services. We might have received better terms from third parties because, among other things, third parties might have competed with each other to win our business. Effective November 12, 2018, the MSA fee and certain payment obligations pursuant to the Founders Agreement were waived under the Waiver and Termination Agreement signed between Avenue, Fortress and InvaGen.

The ownership by our executive officers and some of our directors of equity securities of Fortress and/or rights to acquire equity securities of Fortress might create, or appear to create, conflicts of interest.

Because of their current or former positions with Fortress, some of our executive officers and directors own shares of Fortress common stock and/or options to purchase shares of Fortress common stock. Their individual holdings of common stock and/or options to purchase common stock of Fortress may be significant compared to their total assets. Ownership by our directors and officers, after our separation, of common stock and/or options to purchase common stock of Fortress create or might appear to create conflicts of interest when these directors and officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for Fortress than for us. For instance, and by way of example, if there were to be a dispute between Fortress and us regarding the calculation of the royalty fee due to Fortress under the terms of the Founders Agreement, then certain of our officers and directors may have and will appear to have a conflict of interest with regard to the outcome of such dispute.

Risks Pertaining to Our Business and Industry

We currently have no drug products for sale, and only one drug product candidate, IV Tramadol. We are dependent on the success of IV Tramadol and cannot guarantee that this product candidate will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized.

Our business success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval to successfully commercialize, market and sell our only product candidate, IV Tramadol, and any significant delays in obtaining approval to commercialize, market and sell IV Tramadol will have a substantial adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

If the application for IV Tramadol is approved, our ability to generate revenues from IV Tramadol will depend on our ability to:

Table of Contents

· hire, train, deploy and support our sales force;

· maintain patent protection and regulatory exclusivity for IV Tramadol.

We may not receive regulatory approval for IV Tramadol or future product candidates, or its or their approvals may be delayed, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

IV Tramadol and other future product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to premarket approval and comprehensive regulation by the FDA, DEA and other regulatory agencies in the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for IV Tramadol or any future product candidates will prevent us from commercializing our product candidates. We have not received approval to market IV Tramadol from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in conducting preclinical and clinical studies and filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third party contract research organizations as well as consultants and vendors to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities.

Our product candidate IV Tramadol or any future product candidates must meet FDA’s standards for safety and efficacy, but may be determined not to be effective, to be only moderately effective, to not be safe for use in its intended population, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

On October 12, 2020, we announced that we had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA regarding our New Drug Application (“NDA”) for IV Tramadol. The CRL cited deficiencies related to the terminal sterilization validation and stated that IV Tramadol, intended to treat patients in acute pain who require an opioid, is not safe for the intended patient population.

On February 12, 2021, we resubmitted our NDA to the FDA for IV Tramadol. The NDA resubmission followed the receipt of official minutes from a Type A meeting with the FDA. The resubmission included revised language relating to the proposed product label and a report relating to terminal sterilization validation. On June 14, 2021, we announced that we had received a second Complete Response Letter (the "Second CRL") from the FDA regarding the Company's NDA for IV Tramadol. The Second CRL stated that the delayed and unpredictable onset of analgesia with IV Tramadol does not support its benefit as a monotherapy to treat patients in acute pain and that there is insufficient information to support that IV tramadol in combination with other analgesics is safe and effective for the intended patient population. We continue to pursue regulatory approval for IV Tramadol and had a Type A meeting with the FDA in July 2021. The FDA did not deviate from any of the positions the FDA previously took in the First CRL and the Second CRL.. We submitted a formal dispute resolution request ("FDRR") with the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA on July 27, 2021. On August 26, 2021, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA in response to the FDRR submitted on July 27, 2021. On August 31, 2021, we submitted a FDRR with the Office of New Drugs ("OND") of the FDA. On October 21, 2021, we received a written response from the OND of the FDA stating that the OND needs additional input from an Advisory Committee in order to reach a decision on the FDRR.. Our ability to potentially commercialize IV Tramadol, and the timing of any potential commercialization, are dependent on the FDA's review of the FDRR for IV Tramadol, whether or not the FDA ultimately approves IV Tramadol, and potentially on whether or not we procure additional capital.

Table of Contents

If our product candidate or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, the approved label indication and accompanying label information may be required to contain information limiting the approved use of our drug, which could limit sales of the product. In addition, our third-party supplier may be subject to an inspection by the FDA that identifies deficiencies in its manufacturing facilities and concludes they are not operating in compliance with CGMP requirements, which in turn, may force us to identify, qualify and rely upon additional suppliers.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if approval is granted at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in the regulatory review process for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidate or any future product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, the approval of the indication for our product candidate by such regulatory authorities may, among other things, be more limited than we request. Such regulatory authorities may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. These regulatory authorities may also require the label to contain warnings, contraindications, or precautions that limit the commercialization of that product. Any of these scenarios could compromise the commercial prospects for our product candidate or any future product candidates.

If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of IV Tramadol or our future product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.

If our product candidate or future product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In our industry, many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause undesirable side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In the event that our preclinical or clinical trials reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects, our trials could be delayed, suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development or deny approval of our product candidate or future product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The FDA could also issue a letter requesting additional data or information prior to making a final decision regarding whether or not to approve a product candidate. The number of requests for additional data or information issued by the FDA in recent years has increased, and resulted in substantial delays in the approval of several new drugs. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate or future product candidates could also result in the inclusion of serious risk information in our product labeling, application of burdensome post-market requirements, or the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications, and in turn prevent us from commercializing and generating revenues from the sale of our product candidate. Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial and could result in potential product liability claims.

For example, some of the adverse events observed in the IV Tramadol clinical trials completed to date include nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, sweating, vomiting, dry mouth, somnolence and hypotension.

Table of Contents

Additionally, if one or more of our current or future product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by this product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

· our reputation may suffer.

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining marketing approval and market acceptance of our product candidate or future product candidates or could substantially increase our commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its sale.

We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and commercial, scientific and clinical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

Our employees, consultants, or third-party partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including those that result in noncompliance with certain regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

Table of Contents

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 harm 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. Although we believe that the safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental 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 for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

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 in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We are an “emerging growth company” and a “smaller reporting company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as that term is used in the JOBS Act, and may remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the initial public offering of our common stock, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our outstanding common stock that are held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three year period. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:

· reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation; and

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of these accounting standards until they would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of this extended transition period.

Table of Contents

We are also a smaller reporting company, and we will remain a smaller reporting company until the fiscal year following the determination that our voting and non-voting common shares held by non-affiliates is more than $250 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenues are more than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common shares held by non-affiliates is more than $700 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter. Similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies are able to provide simplified executive compensation disclosure, are exempt from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, and have certain other reduced disclosure obligations, including, among other things, being required to provide only two years of audited financial statements and not being required to provide selected financial data, supplemental financial information or risk factors.

We have elected to take advantage of certain of the reduced reporting obligations. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be reduced or more volatile.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of NASDAQ listing standards and, as a result, qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of NASDAQ listing standards. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ, including (i) the requirement that a majority of the Board of Directors consist of independent directors, (ii) the requirement that we have a nominating and corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities and (iii) the requirement that we have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities. We intend to rely on some or all of these exemptions.

Accordingly, you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ.

Certain of our officers and directors serve in similar roles with our parent company, affiliates, related parties and other parties with whom we transact business; ongoing and future relationships and transactions between these parties could result in conflicts of interest.

We share directors and/or officers with certain of our parent company, affiliates, related parties or other companies with which we transact business, and such arrangements could create conflicts of interest in the future, including with respect to the allocation of corporate opportunities. While we believe that we have put in place policies and procedures to identify such conflicts and that any existing agreements that may give rise to such conflicts and any such policies or procedures were negotiated at arm’s length in conformity with fiduciary duties, such conflicts of interest may nonetheless arise. The existence and consequences of such potential conflicts could expose us to lost profits, claims by our investors and creditors, and harm to our results of operations.

Risks Pertaining to Our Finances

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are an emerging growth company with a limited operating history. We have focused primarily on in-licensing and developing IV Tramadol, with the goal of supporting regulatory approval for this product candidate. We have incurred losses since our inception in February 2015.

These losses, among other things, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future. We also do not anticipate that we will achieve profitability for a period of time after generating material revenues, if ever. If we are unable to generate revenues, we will not become profitable and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. In addition, the Company cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all.

Table of Contents

Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if:

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any revenue from our development stage product, and we do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in our value could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Our short operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business and prospects.

We were incorporated on February 9, 2015, and have only been conducting operations with respect to IV Tramadol since February 17, 2015. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to expand our capabilities to support commercial activities. We may not be successful in adding such capabilities.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any past quarterly period as an indication of future operating performance.

Table of Contents

There is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing.

Our financial statements as of December 31, 2021 have been prepared under the assumption that we will continue as a going concern for the next twelve months. As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $3.8 million and an accumulated deficit of $77.0 million. We do not believe that our cash and cash equivalents are sufficient for the next twelve months. As a result of our financial condition and other factors described herein, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our ability to continue as a going concern will depend on our ability to obtain additional funding, as to which no assurances can be given. We continue to analyze various alternatives, including potentially obtaining lines of credit, debt or equity financings or other arrangements. Our future success depends on our ability to raise capital and/or implement the various strategic alternatives discussed above. We cannot be certain that these initiatives or raising additional capital, whether through selling additional debt or equity securities or obtaining a line of credit or other loan, will be available to us or, if available, will be on terms acceptable to us. If we issue additional securities to raise funds, these securities may have rights, preferences, or privileges senior to those of our common stock, and our current shareholders may experience dilution. If we are unable to obtain funds when needed or on acceptable terms, we may be required to curtail our current development programs, cut operating costs, forego future development and other opportunities or even terminate our operations.

We do not have any products that are approved for commercial sale and therefore do not expect to generate any revenues from product sales in the foreseeable future, if ever.

We have not generated any product related revenues to date. To obtain revenues from sales of our product candidates, we must succeed, either alone or with third parties, in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and marketing products with commercial potential. We may never succeed in these activities, and we may not generate sufficient revenues to continue our business operations or achieve profitability.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise the necessary additional capital, we may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to significantly increase our spending to advance the clinical development and potential regulatory approval of IV Tramadol and launch and commercialize any additional product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, including building our own commercial organizations to address certain markets. We will require additional capital for the further development and potential commercialization of IV Tramadol or other potential product candidates, as well as to fund our other operating expenses and capital expenditures, and cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to raise funds to complete the development of our product.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. We may also seek collaborators for product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available. Any of these events could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Table of Contents

· the effect of competing technological and market developments;

· the success of the commercialization of one or more of our product candidates.

In order to carry out our business plan and implement our strategy, we may need to obtain additional financing and may choose to raise additional funds through strategic collaborations, licensing arrangements, public or private equity or debt financing, bank lines of credit, asset sales, government grants, or other arrangements. We cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us or at all. Furthermore, any additional equity or equity-related financing may be dilutive to our stockholders, and debt or equity financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants and significant interest costs. If we obtain funding through a strategic collaboration or licensing arrangement, we may be required to relinquish our rights to our product candidate or marketing territories.

Our inability to raise capital when needed would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause our stock value to decline or require that we wind down our operations altogether.

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, grants and license and development agreements in connection with any collaborations. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may 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 collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market any potential product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We will continue to incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

We are a listed and traded public company. As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules subsequently implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the rules of any stock exchange on which we may become listed. These rules impose various requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and appropriate corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel have devoted and will continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board committees or as executive officers.

Table of Contents

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal controls for financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. As a result, we are required to periodically perform an evaluation of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of those controls, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, while we remain either a non-accelerated filer and/or an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we have engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting. These efforts to comply with Section 404 and related regulations have required, and continue to require, the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. While we anticipate maintaining the integrity of our internal controls over financial reporting and all other aspects of Section 404, we cannot be certain that a material weakness will not be identified when we test the effectiveness of our control systems in the future. If a material weakness is identified, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources, costly litigation or a loss of public confidence in our internal controls, which could have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock.

If we fail to satisfy applicable listing standards, including compliance with the minimum market value of listed securities requirement, our common stock may be delisted from the NASDAQ Capital Market.

On September 2, 2021, we received a letter from the Listing Qualifications Department of the NASDAQ Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) notifying us that, based upon its review for the last 30 consecutive business days, we did not meet the continuing listing requirements of Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 5550(b)(2), which requires that we maintain a minimum market value of listed securities of at least $35 million. Nasdaq also informed us that we did not meet the requirements of Listing Rules 5550(b)(1) and 5550(b)(3). Under Nasdaq’s Listing Rules, we had 180 calendar days from the date of the notification to regain compliance, which expired on March 1, 2022. We were unable to regain compliance during this 180-day period. Subsequently, on March 2, 2022, we received an additional notification from the Listing Qualifications Department stating that due to the deficiency, the Company’s securities would be delisted from Nasdaq on March 11, 2022, unless the Company appealed Nasdaq’s determination to a Hearings Panel (the “Panel”). A hearing request would stay the suspension of the Company’s securities pending the Panel’s decision. On March 9, 2022, the Company submitted the hearing request. The hearing will take place in April and the Panel’s decision will follow shortly after. The pendency of the appeal does not have an immediate effect on the listing of our common stock and our common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq under the symbol “ATXI”.

Additionally, as previously disclosed on February 8, 2022, we received a letter from the Regulations Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market indicating that the closing bid price of our common stock has been below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days, and that, therefore, we are not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), which is the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we have automatically been afforded a 180-calendar day grace period, or until August 8, 2022, to regain compliance. The continued listing standard will be met if the closing bid price of our common stock is at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten consecutive business days during the 180-calendar day grace period. If we are not in compliance by August 8, 2022, we may be afforded a second 180-calendar day period to regain compliance if it meets certain requirements.

There can be no assurances, however, that we will be successful in regaining compliance with the continued listing requirements and maintaining the listing of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Delisting from the Nasdaq could adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through the public or private sale of equity securities, would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and would negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock. Delisting could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities. If our common stock is delisted by the Nasdaq the price of our common stock may decline and our common stock may be eligible to trade on the OTC Bulletin Board, another over-the-counter quotation system, or on the pink sheets where an investor may find it more difficult to dispose of their common stock or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock. Further, if we are delisted, we would incur additional costs under requirements of state "blue sky" laws in connection with any sales of our securities. These requirements could severely limit the market liquidity of our common stock and the ability of our stockholders to sell our common stock in the secondary market.

Table of Contents

In the event we were to pursue a bankruptcy reorganization under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, we would be subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with bankruptcy proceedings, including the potential delisting of our common stock from trading on Nasdaq.

ATXI US Equity

ATXI · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

Item 1A.Risk Factors

ATXI US Equity☆

ATXI · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

Item 1A.Risk Factors

ATXI US Equity