FBIO · Read the filing

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2023

For the Transition Period from ____ to _____.

Commission File No. 001-35366

FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (781) 652-4500

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

Title of Class Trading Symbol(s) Exchange Name

Common Stock FBIO Nasdaq Capital 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 electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes⌧ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See definition 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. ☐

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $52,871,646.

Class of Stock Outstanding Shares as of March 27, 2024

Table of Contents

FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I 7

Item 1. Business. 7

Item 1A. Risk Factors 28

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 64

Item 1C. Cybersecurity 65

Item 2. Properties 66

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 66

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 66

Item 6. Reserved 67

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk. 86

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. 86

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures. 86

Item 9B. Other Information 87

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 87

PART III 87

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 87

Item 11. Executive Compensation 87

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 87

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules. 88

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not descriptions of historical facts are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “anticipates,” “believes,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “should,” or “will” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial condition and stock price. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated include those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” including, in particular, risks relating to:

● our growth strategy;

● financing and strategic agreements and relationships;

● our ability to attract, integrate and retain key personnel;

● the early stage of products under development;

● the results of research and development activities;

● uncertainties relating to preclinical and clinical testing;

● our ability to obtain regulatory approval for products under development;

● government regulation;

● patent and intellectual property matters; and

● competition.

We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations or any changes in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as may be required by law, and we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The information contained herein is intended to be reviewed in its totality, and any stipulations, conditions or provisos that apply to a given piece of information in one part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be read as applying mutatis mutandis to every other instance of such information appearing herein.

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF 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 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”). As used below and throughout this filing (including in the risk factors described in Item 1A), the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress Biotech, Inc. individually, to one or more of its subsidiaries and/or partner companies, or to all such entities as a group, as dictated by context.

Risks Inherent in Drug Development

Risks Pertaining to the Need for and Impact of Existing and Additional Financing Activities

Risks Pertaining to Our Existing Revenue Stream from Journey Medical Corporation (“Journey”)

Table of Contents

Risks Pertaining to our Business Strategy, Structure and Organization

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes with Licensors Thereof

Risks Pertaining to Generic Competition and Paragraph IV Litigation

Table of Contents

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates

Risks Pertaining to Legislation and Regulation Affecting the Biopharmaceutical and Other Industries

General and Other Risks

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress” or the “Company”) is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring and advancing assets to enhance long-term value for shareholders through product revenue, equity holding and dividend and royalty revenue streams. Fortress works in concert with our extensive network of key opinion leaders to identify and evaluate promising products and product candidates for potential acquisition. We have executed arrangements in partnership with some of the world’s foremost universities, research institutes and pharmaceutical companies, including City of Hope National Medical Center (“COH” or “City of Hope”), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (“St. Jude”), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“Mayo Clinic”), AstraZeneca plc, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.

Following the exclusive license or other acquisition of the intellectual property underpinning a product or product candidate, Fortress leverages its business, scientific, regulatory, legal and financial expertise to help the partners achieve their goals. Partner and subsidiary companies then assess a broad range of strategic arrangements to accelerate and provide additional funding to support research and development, including joint ventures, partnerships, out-licensings, sales transactions, and public and private financings. To date, four partner companies are publicly-traded, and two have consummated strategic partnerships with industry leaders AstraZeneca plc as successor-in-interest to Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“AstraZeneca”) and Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sentynl”), respectively.

Our subsidiary and partner companies that are pursuing development and/or commercialization of biopharmaceutical products and product candidates are Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATXI, “Avenue”), Baergic Bio, Inc. (“Baergic,” a subsidiary of Avenue), Cellvation, Inc. (“Cellvation”), Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CKPT, “Checkpoint”), Cyprium Therapeutics, Inc. (“Cyprium”), Helocyte, Inc. (“Helocyte”), Journey Medical Corporation (Nasdaq: DERM, “Journey” or “JMC”), Mustang Bio, Inc. (Nasdaq: MBIO, “Mustang”), Oncogenuity, Inc. (“Oncogenuity”) and Urica Therapeutics, Inc. (“Urica”). Aevitas Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aevitas”) was a consolidated subsidiary company until the sale of its primary asset to 4D Molecular Therapeutics in April 2023.

As used throughout this filing, the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress individually, to one or more of its subsidiaries and/or partner companies, or to all such entities as a group, as dictated by context. Generally, “subsidiary” refers to a private Fortress subsidiary, “partner company” refers to a public Fortress subsidiary, and “partner” refers to an entity with whom one of the foregoing parties has a significant business relationship, such as an exclusive license or an ongoing product-related payment obligation. The context in which any such term is used throughout this document, however, may dictate a different construal from the foregoing.

Product Candidates and Other Intellectual Property

Revenue Portfolio

Through our partner company Journey we actively market the following branded dermatology products approved by the FDA for sale in the United States:

Table of Contents

Additionally, Journey sells two authorized generic products:

Late Stage Product Candidates

Cosibelimab (anti-PD-L1 antibody)

Our partner company Checkpoint is currently developing its lead product candidate, cosibelimab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (“anti-PD-L1”) monoclonal antibody licensed from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in solid tumor indications. In 2017, Checkpoint commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial in checkpoint therapy-naïve patients with selected recurrent or metastatic cancers. In January 2022, Checkpoint announced top-line results from a cohort of this study with cosibelimab administered as a fixed dose of 800 mg every two weeks in patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (“cSCC”). The cohort met its primary endpoint, with cosibelimab demonstrating a confirmed overall response (“ORR”) of 47.4% (95% CI: 36.0, 59.1) based on independent central review of 78 patients enrolled in the metastatic cSCC cohort using RECIST 1.1.

In June 2022, Checkpoint announced interim results from another cohort of this study with cosibelimab administered as a fixed dose of 800 mg every two weeks in patients with locally advanced cSCC that are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. Cosibelimab demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 54.8% (95% CI: 36.0, 72.7) based on independent central review of 31 patients enrolled in the cohort. The design of the interim analysis incorporated feedback from the FDA and is intended to potentially support the approval of cosibelimab in this indication.

In July 2023, Checkpoint announced longer-term results for cosibelimab from its pivotal studies in locally advanced and metastatic cSCC. These results demonstrated a deepening of response over time, resulting in complete response rates of 26% and 13% in locally advanced and metastatic cSCC, respectively. Additionally, the confirmed ORR in metastatic cSCC increased to 50.0% based on independent central review. Furthermore, responses continue to remain durable over time with the median duration of response not yet reached in either group. Updated safety data across 247 patients enrolled and treated with cosibelimab in all cohorts of the ongoing study remain consistent with those previously reported.

Based on these results, Checkpoint submitted a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for cosibelimab in January 2023. On December 15, 2023, the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) for the cosibelimab BLA for the treatment of patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. The CRL only cited findings that arose during a multi-sponsor inspection of our third-party contract manufacturing organization as approvability issues to address in a resubmission. The CRL did not state any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or labeling. Following resolution of the inspection issues at the third-party contract manufacturing organization raised in the CRL, a resubmission of the BLA is planned in 2024 to support the marketing approval of cosibelimab.

Table of Contents

Checkpoint also previously had a collaboration agreement with TG Therapeutics, Inc. (“TGTX”) whereby TGTX was granted the rights to develop and commercialize cosibelimab in the field of hematological malignancies, while Checkpoint retained the right to develop and commercialize these assets in solid tumors. Effective September 30, 2023, Checkpoint and TGTX agreed to mutually terminate these collaborations, with full rights reverting back to Checkpoint.

DFD-29 (modified release oral minocycline for the treatment of rosacea)

Through our partner company Journey, in collaboration with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (“DRL”), we are developing DFD-29, a modified release oral minocycline being evaluated for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of rosacea.

Under the DRL arrangement, Journey is responsible for the development of DFD-29, which includes conducting two Phase 3 studies to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of DFD-29 for the treatment of rosacea and the regulatory submission of a new drug application under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. DRL provides development support including the monitoring of two Phase 3 clinical trials, which were initiated in the first quarter of 2022, and completed enrollment in January 2023. In July 2023, Journey announced positive topline data from our two DFD-29 Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea. The Phase 3 clinical trials achieved the co-primary and all secondary endpoints and subjects completed the 16-week treatment and the drug was well-tolerated. DFD-29 demonstrated statistical superiority over both the standard of care, Oracea® capsules, and placebo for Investigator’s Global Assessment treatment success and the reduction in the total inflammatory lesion count in both studies. Journey filed a New Drug Application (“NDA”) with the FDA for DFD-29 on January 4, 2024, paying a $4.0 million filing fee, and announced on March 18, 2024 that the FDA accepted the NDA and assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) goal date of November 4, 2024.

CUTX-101 (copper histidinate injection for Menkes disease)

Our partner company Cyprium was previously developing CUTX-101, a copper histidinate injection for the treatment of Menkes disease. Menkes disease is a rare X-linked pediatric disease caused by gene mutations of copper transporter ATP7A, which affects approximately 1 in 34,810 live male births, and potentially as high as 1 in 8,664 live male births, based on a recent genome-based ascertainment study. Menkes disease is characterized by distinctive clinical features, including sparse and depigmented hair (“kinky hair”), failure to thrive, connective tissue disorders and severe neurological symptoms such as seizures and hypotonia. Biochemically, Menkes patients may have low serum copper levels, as well as abnormal levels of catecholamine, but definitive diagnosis is typically made by sequencing of the ATP7A gene. There is no current FDA-approved treatment for Menkes disease. CUTX-101, along with an AAV-ATP7A gene therapy that is being developed by Cyprium, was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products. CUTX-101 was also granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation by the FDA for the treatment of Menkes disease, Fast Track Designation for classic Menkes disease in patients who have not demonstrated significant clinical progression, and Breakthrough Therapy Designation.

In August 2020, Cyprium reported positive top-line clinical efficacy results for CUTX-101. The study demonstrated statistically significant improvement in overall survival for Menkes disease subjects who received early treatment (“ET”) with CUTX-101, compared to an untreated historical control (“HC”) cohort, with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of death (Hazard Ratio = 0.21, p<0.0001). Median survival for the ET cohort was 14.8 years (177.1 months) compared to 1.3 years (15.9 months) for the untreated HC cohort.

On February 24, 2021, Cyprium entered into a development and asset purchase agreement (the “Sentynl APA”) with Sentynl Therapeutics, a U.S.-based specialty pharmaceutical company owned by the Zydus Group. Under the Sentynl APA, Sentynl provided certain development funding for the CUTX-101 program, with Cyprium initially remaining in control of development of such program. Pursuant to a contractual right exercised by Sentynl in October 2023, however, Cyprium assigned the NDA and certain other assets pertaining to the CUTX-101 program to Sentynl and received $4.5 million in connection with the closing of such transaction.

Sentynl is now obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize CUTX-101, including the funding of the same. Additionally, Cyprium remains eligible to receive up to $129 million in aggregate development and sales milestones under the Agreement, and royalties on net sales of CUTX-101 as follows: (i) 3% of annual net sales up to $75 million; (ii) 8.75% of annual net sales between $75 million and $100 million; and (iii) 12.5% of annual net sales in excess of $100 million. Cyprium will retain 100% ownership over any FDA priority review voucher that may be issued if

Table of Contents

the NDA for CUTX-101 is approved. The CUTX-101 rolling NDA submission is ongoing and is expected to be completed by Sentynl in 2024.

Cyprium previously enrolled patients into an Intermediate-Size Patient Population Expanded Access Protocol which is now administered by Sentynl Therapeutics. Additional information on the Expanded Access study and requirements can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT04074512. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

IV Tramadol

Our partner company Avenue is developing an intravenous formulation of tramadol (“IV tramadol”), a schedule IV opioid for the treatment of post-operative acute pain. Avenue completed two Phase 3 efficacy studies in 2018 and 2019 and announced that both had met their primary endpoints and all key secondary endpoints. In December 2019, Avenue submitted an NDA for IV tramadol to treat moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and following a CRL received in October 2020, resubmitted the NDA in February 2021. 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 a 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.

In February 2022, Avenue held an Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA regarding IV tramadol. 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. In March 2022, Avenue received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of New Drugs in response to the formal dispute resolution request. In August 2022, Avenue participated in a Type A Meeting with the FDA Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products (“DAAAP”) regarding a briefing document submitted that presented a study design the Avenue believed would have the potential to address the comments and deficiencies noted in the Letter.

In January 2024, Avenue announced that they reached final agreement with the FDA on the Phase 3 safety study protocol and statistical analysis approach, including the primary endpoint. The final non-inferiority study is designed to assess the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression related to opioid stacking on IV tramadol compared to IV morphine. The study will randomize approximately 300 post bunionectomy patients to IV tramadol or IV morphine for pain relief administered during a 48-hour post-operative period. Of note, the same surgical model was used in a pivotal Phase 3 Trial. In the Phase 3 safety study to be conducted, patients will have access to IV hydromorphone, a Schedule II opioid, for rescue of breakthrough pain. The primary endpoint is a composite of elements indicative of respiratory depression. Avenue plans to initiate the study as soon as possible, subject to having the necessary financing.

Olafertinib (also known as CK-101, EGFR inhibitor for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC)

Checkpoint is currently evaluating a lead small-molecule, targeted anti-cancer agent, olafertinib, as an oral, third-generation, irreversible kinase inhibitor against selective mutations of epidermal growth factor receptors (“EGFR”) for the potential treatment of adult patients with metastatic NSCLC, whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletion mutations. Checkpoint believes that olafertinib has the potential to be effective in this population as a monotherapy or in combination with other anti-tumor immune response potentiating compounds. Olafertinib has FDA Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

In September 2018, Checkpoint announced preliminary interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial. The data were presented in an oral presentation at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (“IASLC”) 19th World Conference on Lung Cancer in Toronto. Additional information on the Phase 1 trial can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT02926768. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

In November 2020, NeuPharma, Inc. commenced a Phase 3 clinical trial in China evaluating olafertinib in treatment-naïve locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletion mutations.

CAEL-101 (monoclonal antibody for AL amyloidosis)

Our former subsidiary Caelum, in collaboration with AstraZeneca plc (“AstraZeneca”), is working to develop a novel, first-in-class monoclonal antibody called CAEL-101 for the treatment of amyloid light chain (“AL”) amyloidosis. CAEL-101 is designed to improve organ function by reducing or eliminating amyloid deposits in the tissues and organs of patients with AL amyloidosis. The antibody is designed to bind to insoluble light chain amyloid protein, including both kappa and lambda subtypes and received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA as a therapy for patients with AL amyloidosis, and as a radio-imaging agent in AL amyloidosis. CAEL-101 is currently in two Phase 3 trials for AL amyloidosis and additional information on those trials can be found at ClinicalTrials.gov using identifiers: NCT04512235 and NCT04504825. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In October 2021, AstraZeneca acquired Caelum for an upfront payment of approximately $150 million paid to Caelum shareholders, of which approximately $56.9 million was paid to Fortress, which was net of the ten percent escrow holdback amount and other miscellaneous transaction expenses. The agreement also provides for additional potential payments to Caelum shareholders totaling up to $350 million, payable upon the achievement of regulatory and commercial milestones. Fortress is eligible to receive 42.4% of all possible proceeds of the transaction, including approximately $148 million to Fortress, with $31.8 million upon BLA approval.

Triplex (cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine)

Through our subsidiary Helocyte, we are developing Triplex, a universal recombinant Modified Vaccinia Ankara viral vector vaccine engineered to induce a rapid, robust and durable virus-specific T cell response to three immuno-dominant proteins (UL83 (pp65), UL123 (IE1), and UL122 (IE2)) linked to cytomegalovirus (“CMV”) complications in the transplant setting. In a Phase 1 study, Triplex was observed to be safe, well-tolerated and highly immunogenic when administered to healthy volunteers at multiple dose levels (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01941056). In a Phase 2 trial, Triplex was observed to be safe, well-tolerated, highly immunogenic and a reduction in CMV events in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients was observed (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02506933). Triplex is currently the subject of four, grant-funded trials in various clinical settings including: adults undergoing stem cell transplant; adults co-infected with CMV and Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”); and in combination with a CAR T cell therapy for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (“NHL”). Helocyte secured an exclusive, worldwide license to Triplex from COH in April 2015. Helocyte secured an exclusive, worldwide license to Triplex from COH in April of 2015. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In December 2021, Helocyte announced that a Phase 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Triplex, a CMV vaccine, in eliciting a CMV-specific immune response and reducing CMV replication in people living with HIV. The trial is being conducted by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group and is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health.

In August 2022, Helocyte announced that Triplex received a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health that could provide over $20 million in non-dilutive funding. This competitive award will fund a multi-center, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 2 study of Triplex for control of CMV in patients undergoing liver transplantation. The company believes this data set could ultimately be used to support approval of Triplex in this setting and the trial is expected to commence in 2024.

Early and Mid-Stage Product Candidates

Dotinurad (urate transporter (URAT1) inhibitor for gout)

Through our partner company Urica, in May 2021, we acquired an exclusive license from Fuji Yakuhin Co. Ltd. (“Fuji”) to develop dotinurad in North America and Europe (with the exclusive licensed territory later expanded to include the Middle East and North Africa). Dotinurad is a potential best-in-class urate transporter (URAT1) inhibitor for gout and possibly other hyperuricemic indications. Dotinurad (URECE® tablet) was approved in Japan in 2020 as a once-daily oral

Table of Contents

therapy for gout and hyperuricemia. Dotinurad was efficacious and well-tolerated in more than 500 Japanese patients treated for up to 58 weeks in Phase 3 clinical trials. The clinical program supporting approval included over 1,000 patients.

In June 2023, Urica announced data from the Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers showed comparable pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profile between U.S. and Japanese healthy subjects. In the third quarter of 2023, Urica initiated a Phase 1b clinical trial in patients with gout and hyperuricemia in the U.S. to compare U.S. patients’ response to dotinurad with data generated in Japan, and to assess drug-drug interactions, if any, with allopurinol. Urica expects to announce data from this trial in the first half of 2024.

MB-106 (CD20-targeted CAR T cell therapy)

Mustang is currently developing MB-106 in a collaboration with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (“Fred Hutch”), a CD20-targeted, 3rd generation autologous CAR T-cell therapy, for patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (“NHL”) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (“CLL”).

Under their IND, Fred Hutch is currently conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical study to evaluate the anti-tumor activity and safety of administering CD20-directed third-generation CAR T cells incorporating both 4-1BB and CD28 co-stimulatory signaling domains (MB-106) to patients with relapsed or refractory B-NHL or CLL (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03277729). Secondary endpoints of this study include safety and toxicity, preliminary antitumor activity as measured by overall response rate and complete remission rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study is also assessing CAR T cell persistence and the potential immunogenicity of the cells. Fred Hutch intends to enroll approximately 50 subjects on the study, which is being led by Principal Investigator Mazyar Shadman, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Member of Fred Hutch’s Clinical Research Division.

The Fred Hutch IND was amended in 2019 to incorporate an optimized manufacturing process that had been developed in collaboration with Mustang.

In December 2023, Mustang announced initial data from its ongoing multicenter, open-label, non-randomized Phase 1/2 clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT05360238) evaluating the safety and efficacy of MB-106 CAR-T cell therapy at the 2023 American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) Annual Meeting. Initial data show that all patients responded clinically to treatment with MB-106 (n=9); 100% overall response rate for patients with follicular lymphoma (“FL”) and Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (“WM”). 100% of patients with FL (n=5) had a complete response; 1 very good partial response and 2 partial responses were observed in WM patients (n=3); and the hairy cell leukemia variant (“HCL-v”) patient experienced stable disease, with prolonged, ongoing independence from blood transfusions. Complete responses were observed in patients previously treated with CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy. MB-106 demonstrated a tolerable safety profile in patients with indolent NHL, with no occurrence of cytokine release syndrome (“CRS”) above grade 1 and no immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (“ICANS”) of any grade. Outpatient administration was allowed and found to be feasible. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In June 2023, Mustang announced final results from the FL cohort of the Fred Hutch Phase 1/2 clinical study, and the data showed an ORR of 95% (n=19/20) and complete response rate (“CR”) of 80% (n=16/20). Ten patients were in remission for over one year, seven of whom were in remission for over two years. All cytokine release syndrome events were grade1 (n=5/20) or grade 2 (n=1/20) with no grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (“CRS”) events. There was no occurrence of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (“ICANS”) of any grade.

MB-101 (IL13Rα2 CAR T Cell Program for Glioblastoma)

Mustang is also currently developing MB-101 for malignant brain tumors, including glioblastoma (“GBM”). MB-101 is an optimized CAR T product targeting IL13Rα2 on the surface of the malignant cells and incorporates enhancements in CAR T design and T cell engineering to improve antitumor potency and T cell persistence.

GBM is the most common brain and central nervous system (“CNS”) cancer, accounting for 49% of malignant primary brain and CNS tumors, 54% of all gliomas, and 16% of all primary brain and CNS tumors. More than 14,490 new glioblastoma cases were predicted in the U.S. for 2023. Malignant brain tumors are the most common cause of cancer-

Table of Contents

related deaths in adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 and the most common cancer occurring among 15-19 year-olds in the U.S. While GBM is a rare disease, it is quite lethal, with five-year survival rates historically under 10%. Standard of care therapy consists of maximal surgical resection, radiation, and chemotherapy with temozolomide, which, while rarely curative, is shown to extend median overall survival from 4.5 to 15 months. GBM remains difficult to treat due to the inherent resistance of the tumor to conventional therapies.

Immunotherapy approaches targeting brain tumors offer promise over conventional treatments. IL13Rα2 is an attractive target for CAR T therapy, as it has limited expression in normal tissue but is over-expressed on the surface of greater than 50% of GBM tumors. CAR T cells are designed to express membrane-tethered IL-13 receptor ligand mutated at a single site (glutamic acid at position 13 to a tyrosine; E13Y) with high affinity for IL13Rα2 and reduced binding to IL13Rα1 in order to reduce healthy tissue targeting (Kahlon KS et al. Cancer Research. 2004;64:9160-9166).

Having optimized MB-101 dose, schedule, route of administration and T cell selection in a completed Phase 1 trial, ongoing COH sponsored studies include:

The final planned MB-101 trial will be in combination with the HSV-1 oncolytic virus (MB-108) in treating patients with recurrent or refractory glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma. The objective of this trial is to turn immunologically “cold” tumors “hot” with MB-108 in order to potentially enhance the efficacy of MB-101, then infuse MB-101 loco-regionally as was done in the Phase 1 single-agent MB-101 trial. The combination of MB-101 and MB-108 is referred to as MB-109.

MB-108 (HSV-1 Oncolytic Virus C134 for recurrent GBM)

MB-108 is a next-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus (“oHSV”) in development at Mustang that is conditionally replication competent; that is, it is designed to replicate in tumor cells, but not in normal cells, thus killing the tumor cells directly through this process. It was in-licensed from Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham (“UAB”) is evaluating the safety of this oncolytic virus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma in an ongoing Phase 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03657576). Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The rationale for in-licensing MB-108 was to potentially enhance the efficacy of MB-101 by first turning immunologically “cold” malignant glioma tumors “hot” with MB-108, then infusing MB-101 loco-regionally, as was done in the phase 1 single-agent MB-101 trial. This combination is to be referred to as MB-109.

MB-109 (MB-101 (IL13Rα2-targeted CAR T Cell Therapy) + MB-108 (HSV-1 oncolytic virus))

Mustang is developing MB-109, a combination approach of MB-101 and MB-108, as a potential treatment for IL13Rα2+ relapsed or refractory glioblastoma (“GBM”) and anaplastic astrocytoma (“AA”). An attractive novel approach to control glioblastoma is adoptive cellular immunotherapy utilizing CAR T cells. CAR T cells can be engineered to recognize very specific antigenically distinct tumor populations and to migrate through the brain parenchyma to kill malignant cells. In addition, oncolytic viruses (“OVs”) have been developed to effectively infect and kill cancer cells in the tumor, as well as modify the microenvironment to increase tumor immunogenicity and immune cell trafficking within the tumor. Due to these properties, OVs have been studied in combination with other treatments to enhance the effectiveness of immunotherapies.

Preliminary anti-tumor activity has been observed in clinical studies administering the OV (MB-108) and CAR T cell therapy (MB-101) as single agents; however, the combination has not yet been explored. To determine if the combination of both therapies will result in a synergistic effect, investigators from COH developed preclinical studies in orthotopic GBM models in nude mice. Dr. Christine Brown from City of Hope presented these preclinical studies at the American

Table of Contents

Association for Cancer Research 2022 Annual Meeting. It was observed that co-treatment with MB-108 OV and IL13Rα2-directed CAR-T cells gave no adverse events and, more notably, that pre-treatment with MB-108 re-shaped the tumor microenvironment by increasing immune cell infiltrates and enhanced the efficacy of sub-therapeutic doses of CAR-T cell therapy delivered either intraventricularly or intratumorally. These preclinical studies aimed to provide a deeper understanding of this combination approach to support the potential benefit of a combination study that will evaluate an oHSV (MB-108) and IL13Rα2-directed CAR-T cells (MB-101).

In October 2023, Mustang announced that the FDA had accepted the Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application of MB-109 for the treatment of recurrent GBM and high-grade astrocytoma. Mustang is currently planning a Phase 1 clinical study that will investigate increasing doses of intratumorally administered MB-108 followed by dual intratumoral and intraventricular administration of MB-101 to treat recurrent GBM and high-grade astrocytomas that express IL13Rα2 on the surface of tumor cells.

AJ201 (Nrf1 and Nrf2 activator, androgen receptor degradation enhancer)

In February 2023, Avenue announced the license of intellectual property rights underlying AJ201 from AnnJi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. AJ201 is currently being studied in a Phase 1b/2a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial at six clinical sites across the U.S. for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (“SBMA”), also known as Kennedy’s Disease (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05517603). Enrollment was completed in January 2024, with topline data anticipated in the second quarter of 2024.

SBMA is a rare, inherited, X-linked genetic neuromuscular disease primarily affecting men and AJ201 was designed to modify SBMA through multiple mechanisms including degradation of the abnormal AR protein and by stimulating Nrf1 and Nrf2, which are involved in protecting cells from oxidative stress which can lead to cell death.

AJ201 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for the indications of SBMA, Huntington’s Disease, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia.

MB-117 (Ex vivo Lentiviral Gene Therapy for Newly Diagnosed X-linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (“XSCID”)) and MB-217 (Ex vivo Lentiviral Gene Therapy for Previously Transplanted XSCID)

In partnership with St. Jude, Mustang’s XSCID gene therapy programs are being developed under an exclusive license to intellectual property underpinning potentially curative treatment for XSCID, a rare genetic immune system condition in which affected patients do not live beyond infancy without treatment. St. Jude’s first-in-class ex vivo lentiviral (“LV”) gene therapy has been utilized in two Phase 1/2 clinical trials involving two different autologous cell products produced via transduction of patients’ hematopoietic stem cells using a predecessor LV vector. These cell products were designated MB-107 and MB-207, and the respective Phase 1/2 clinical trials were: a multicenter trial of the MB-107 product in newly diagnosed infants sponsored by St. Jude (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01512888; referred to at St. Jude as LVXSCID-ND) and a single-center trial of the MB-207 product in previously transplanted patients sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01306019; referred to at the NIH as LVXSCID-OC).

Going forward, this predecessor LV vector will be replaced by a modified LV vector which will be used to produce the MB-117 and MB-217 cell products. In 2024, following availability of the modified LV vector, we expect that St. Jude will initiate its Phase 1 trial to treat newly diagnosed infants with MB-117 and that the NIH will initiate its Phase 1 trial to treat previously transplanted patients with MB-217.

MB-110 (Ex Vivo Lentiviral Gene Therapy for RAG1 Severe Combined Immunodeficiency)

Mustang is developing MB-110, a first-in-class ex vivo treatment for recombinase-activating gene-1 (“RAG1”) Severe combined immunodeficiency (“SCID”), through an exclusive license and in partnership with Leiden University Medical Centre (“LUMC”). SCID due to complete recombinase-activating gene-1 (RAG1) deficiency is a rare, genetic disorder due to null mutations in the RAG1 gene resulting in less than 1% of wild type V(D)J recombination activity. Neonatal patients present with life-threatening, severe, recurrent infections by opportunistic fungal, viral and bacterial micro-organisms, as well as skin rashes, chronic diarrhea, failure to thrive and fever. Immunologic observations include profound T and B cell lymphopenia, low or absent serum immunoglobulins, and normal natural killer cell counts. As is the case with

Table of Contents

other types of SCID, RAG1-SCID is fatal in infancy unless immune reconstitution is achieved with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

MB-110, which includes low-dose conditioning prior to reinfusion of the patients’ own gene-modified blood stem cells, is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial in Europe. The ongoing clinical trial has enrolled its first patient, and additional clinical sites are expected to be added in the near future. The RAG1-SCID program has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the European Medicines Agency.

BAER-101 (GABAA α2/3 positive allosteric modulator)

Through Avenue’s subsidiary Baergic, we are developing BAER-101, a high affinity, selective modulator of the gamma-aminobutyric acid (“GABA”) A, which is a receptor system with differential binding and modulatory properties dependent on the particular GABA A subtype. Baergic intends to explore BAER-101 in a number of CNS disorders where patients are not adequately treated, including epilepsy and acute anxiety disorders.

In August 2023, Avenue reported preclinical data for BAER-101 from an in vivo evaluation in SynapCell’s Genetic Absence Epilepsy Rate from the Strasbourg (“GAERS”) model of absence epilepsy. The GAERS model mimics behavioral, electrophysiological and pharmacological features of human absence seizures and has shown to be an early informative indicator of efficacy in anti-seizure drug development. In the model, BAER-101 demonstrated full suppression of seizure activity with a minimal effective dose of 0.3 mg/kg administered orally. In December 2023, Avenue presented the preclinical in vivo data evaluating BAER-101 using the GAERS model of absence epilepsy at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 2023 Annual Meeting.

Preclinical Product Candidates

Mayo Clinic In Vivo CAR T Platform Technology

In August 2021, Mustang announced an exclusive license agreement with the Mayo Clinic for a novel technology to create in vivo CAR T cells that may be able to transform the administration of CAR T therapies and has the potential to be used as an off-the-shelf therapy. Preclinical proof-of-concept has been established, and the ongoing development of this technology is continuing in partnership with the Mayo Clinic.

AAV-ATP7A Gene Therapy

Through our subsidiary Cyprium, we are developing adeno-associated virus (“AAV”)-based gene therapy (“AAV-ATP7A”) for the treatment of Menkes disease. Cyprium entered into a license agreement with Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to acquire the global rights to develop and commercialize AAV-ATP7A gene therapy. AAV-ATP7A gene therapy has demonstrated the ability to rescue neurological phenotypes and improve survival when coadministered with copper histidinate injections in a mouse model of Menkes disease and has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA.

In March 2024, Cyprium announced a $4.1 million grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (“NINDS”) of the NIH was awarded to the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Principal Investigator, Stephen G. Kaler, M.D., M.P.H., to fund the completion of preclinical studies, manufacturing, and preparation of an IND application for a first-in-human clinical trial.

AVTS-001 Gene Therapy

In April 2023, we announced the execution of an asset purchase agreement, pursuant to which 4D Molecular Therapeutics (“4DMT”) acquired Aevitas’ proprietary rights to its short-form human complement factor H (“sCFH”) asset for the treatment of complement-mediated diseases. Under the terms of the agreement, Aevitas is eligible to receive cash payments from 4DMT totaling up to $140 million in potential late-stage development, regulatory and sales milestones. A range of single-digit royalties on net sales are also payable.

Table of Contents

Prior to the agreement with 4DMT, Aevitas licensed the sCFH asset from the University of Pennsylvania and also collaborated with University of Massachusetts Medical to optimize AAV constructs.

CK-103 (BET Inhibitor)

Checkpoint is currently developing CK-103, a novel, selective and potent small molecule inhibitor of bromodomain and extra-terminal (“BET”) bromodomains. Checkpoint plans to develop CK-103 for the treatment of various advanced and metastatic solid tumor cancers, including, but not limited to, those associated with elevated c-Myc expression. Checkpoint entered into an exclusive license agreement with Jubilant Biosys Limited to develop and commercialize novel compounds that inhibit BET bromodomains on a worldwide basis. Checkpoint entered into a Sublicense Agreement with TGTX to develop and commercialize CK-103 in the field of hematological malignancies. Checkpoint retains the right to develop and commercialize CK-103 in solid tumors. Currently, Checkpoint has completed the required CMC, pharmacology and toxicology activities that it believes will support an IND application filing.

CEVA-D and CEVA-102

Through our subsidiary Cellvation, we are developing CEVA-D, a novel bioreactor device that is designed to enhance the anti-inflammatory potency of bone marrow-derived cells without genetic manipulation, using wall shear stress to suppress tumor necrosis factor-a (“TNF-a”) production by activated immune cells. CEVA-102 is the first cell product produced by CEVA-D, and may be applicable for various indications, including the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury.

CK-302 (Anti-GITR)

CK-302 is a fully human agonistic monoclonal antibody in development at Checkpoint that is designed to bind and trigger signaling in Glucocorticoid-Induced TNFR-Related (“GITR”) expressing cells. Scientific literature indicates GITR is a co-stimulatory molecule of the TNF receptor family and is expressed on activated T cells, B cells, NK and regulatory T cells. Checkpoint believes that an anti-GITR monoclonal antibody has the potential to be effective in one or more oncological indications as a monotherapy or in combination with an anti-PD-L1 antibody as well as other anti-tumor immune response potentiating compounds and targeted therapies.

CK-303 (Anti-CAIX)

Also in development at Checkpoint is CK-303, a fully human anti-carbonic anhydrase IX (“CAIX”) antibody designed to recognize CAIX expressing cells and kill them via antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (“CDC”). Scientific literature indicates that CAIX is a well characterized tumor associated antigen with expression almost exclusively limited to the cells of renal cell carcinoma (“RCC”). More than 85% of RCC cases have been demonstrated to express high levels of CAIX expression. There is very limited expression of this antigen on healthy tissue which Checkpoint believes will limit reactivity of this antibody against healthy tissues.

ONCOlogues (Oligonucleotide Platform)

Our subsidiary Oncogenuity is developing a delivery platform that allows peptic nucleic acids to enter a cell membrane and nucleus, displace the targeted mutant DNA strand, and prevent mutant mRNA transcription. Oncogenuity is seeking to optimize lead candidates targeting genetically driven cancers, including KRAS G12D, and other genetic disorders.

Intellectual Property Generally

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates, formulations, processes, methods and any other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and 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, both in the United States and abroad. However, patent protection may not afford us with complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents.

Table of Contents

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge, experience and know-how of our management and research and development personnel, as well as that of our advisers, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how, which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we currently, and will in the future, rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all of our employees, consultants, advisers and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

Competition

We operate in highly competitive segments of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical markets. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in research in direct competition with us. We also may compete with these organizations to recruit scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our competitors are pursuing the development and/or acquisition of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and over-the-counter (“OTC”) products that target the same diseases and conditions that we are targeting in biotechnology, biopharmaceutical, dermatological and other therapeutic areas. If competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with therapeutic or cost advantages, our products can be subject to progressive price reductions or decreased volume of sales, or both. Most new products that we introduce must compete with other products already on the market or products that are later developed by competitors. The principal methods of competition for our products include quality, efficacy, market acceptance, price, and marketing and promotional efforts, patient access programs and product insurance coverage reimbursement.

The only pharmaceutical area in which we sell marketed products is dermatology, and the dermatology competitive landscape is highly fragmented, with a large number of mid-size and smaller companies competing in both the prescription sector and the OTC sector.Our competitors are pursuing the development and/or acquisition of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and OTC products that target the same diseases and conditions that we are targeting in dermatology. Competitive factors vary by product line and geographic area in which our products are sold. The principal methods of competition for our products include quality, efficacy, market acceptance, price, and marketing and promotional efforts.

Branded products often must compete with therapeutically similar branded or generic products or with generic equivalents. Such competition frequently increases over time. For example, if competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with therapeutic or cost advantages, our products could be subject to progressive price reductions and/or decreased volume of sales. To successfully compete for business, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits, but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care. Accordingly, we face pressure to continually seek out technological innovations and to market our products effectively.

Our major competitors in dermatology, including Galderma Laboratories, Almirall, Ortho-Dermatologics, Mayne Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Leo Pharma, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics, among others, vary depending on therapeutic and product category, dosage strength and drug-delivery systems, among other factors.

Generic Competition

Our partner company Journey faces increased competition from manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical products, who may submit applications to FDA seeking to market generic versions of Journey’s products. In connection with these applications, the generic drug companies may seek to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents through litigation. When patents covering certain of our products (if applicable) expire or are successfully challenged through litigation or in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proceedings, if a generic company launches a competing product “at risk,” or when the regulatory or licensed exclusivity for our products (if applicable) expires or is otherwise lost, we may face generic competition as a result. Generic versions are generally significantly less expensive than branded

Table of Contents

versions, and, where available, may be required to be utilized before or in preference to the branded version under third-party reimbursement programs, or substituted by pharmacies. Accordingly, when a branded product loses its market exclusivity, it normally faces intense price competition from generic forms of the product. To successfully compete for business with managed care and pharmacy benefits management organizations, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits, but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care. Generic products generally face intense competition from other generic equivalents (including authorized generics) and therapeutically similar branded or generic products.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing.

United States Pharmaceutical Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical (drug and biological) products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and implementing regulations. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign 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 the product-development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA compliance and enforcement actions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial compliance or enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally includes the following:

● submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA for a new pharmaceutical product;

● FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA.

The regulatory review and approval process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. The process of seeking required approvals before we can market or sell a product, and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain the appropriate marketing authorization for any product candidate.

Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the pharmaceutical product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or

Table of Contents

literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA places the IND on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a pharmaceutical product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that submission of an IND will automatically result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that causes such clinical trial to be suspended or terminated.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the pharmaceutical product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by the sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA if conducted under a U.S. IND. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) or ethics committee if conducted outside of the United States, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB or ethics committee is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB or ethics committee also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. We intend to use third-party clinical research organizations (“CROs”) to administer and conduct our planned clinical trials and will rely upon such CROs, as well as medical institutions, clinical investigators and consultants, to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols and to play a significant role in the subsequent collection and analysis of data from these trials. The failure by any of such third parties to meet expected timelines, adhere to our protocols or meet regulatory standards could adversely impact the subject product development program. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be required after initial receipt of marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and may be required by the FDA after it has been approved, and is on the market, as an ongoing condition of approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. 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 or, if used, its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB or ethics committee can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s or ethics committee’s requirements or if the pharmaceutical product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Table of Contents

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

United States Review and Approval Process

The data and results generated from product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the pharmaceutical product, proposed labeling and other required information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA submission before the product can be marketed and sold.

The review and approval process for an NDA or BLA is lengthy and difficult and the FDA may not approve an NDA or BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or if the data and results in the submission are insufficient to support a finding of safety and efficacy, FDA may also require additional clinical data or other data and information to address deficiencies in an application. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Even if a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited with respect to dosages, indications for use, or other label claims related to those disease states, conditions and patient populations for which the product is safe and effective and, 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. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs, which impose additional regulatory requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. We cannot be certain that we or our suppliers will be able to fully comply with the cGMPs or other FDA regulatory requirements.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any pharmaceutical products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing postmarket regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, promoting pharmaceutical products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the pharmaceutical product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, compliance and enforcement actions initiated by the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties. The FDA also may require Phase 4 testing, risk minimization action plans and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, accelerated approval, priority review and breakthrough therapy designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures. To be eligible for fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a drug is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and based on preclinical or preliminary clinical data demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors.

Table of Contents

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six- and ten-month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, drugs studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint and under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Moreover, a sponsor can request designation of a drug candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval and priority review. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Additionally, under FDORA, a platform technology incorporated within or utilized by a drug or biological product is eligible for designation as a designated platform technology if (1) the platform technology is incorporated in, or utilized by, a drug approved under an NDA; (2) preliminary evidence submitted by the sponsor of the approved or licensed drug, or a sponsor that has been granted a right of reference to data submitted in the application for such drug, demonstrates that the platform technology has the potential to be incorporated in, or utilized by, more than one drug without an adverse effect on quality, manufacturing, or safety; and (3) data or information submitted by the applicable person indicates that incorporation or utilization of the platform technology has a reasonable likelihood to bring significant efficiencies to the drug development or manufacturing process and to the review process. A sponsor may request the FDA to designate a platform technology as a designated platform technology concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND application for a drug that incorporates or utilizes the platform technology that is the subject of the request. If so designated, the FDA may expedite the development and review of any subsequent original NDA for a drug that uses or incorporates the platform technology. Designated platform technology status does not ensure that a drug will be developed more quickly or receive FDA approval.

Even if a product candidate or our platform qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation, do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

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

Table of Contents

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.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, special incentives exist for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases or conditions, which are defined to include those diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Requests for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the submission of an NDA or BLA.

If a product that has an orphan drug designation is the first such product to receive FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity for that use. This means that, subsequent to approval, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug that designated orphan use, except in

Table of Contents

limited circumstances, for seven years. The FDA may approve a subsequent application from another person if the FDA determines that the application is for a different drug or different use, or if the FDA determines that the subsequent product is clinically superior, or that the holder of the initial orphan drug approval cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the public’s need. If the FDA approves someone else’s application for the same drug that has orphan exclusivity, but for a different use, the competing drug could be prescribed by physicians outside its FDA approval for the orphan use, notwithstanding the existence of orphan exclusivity. A grant of an orphan designation is not a guarantee that a product will be approved. If a sponsor receives orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, there can be no assurance that the exclusivity will prevent another person from receiving approval for the same or a similar drug for the same or other uses.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity and Patent Term Extensions

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension (“PTE”) under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a PTE of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The PTE period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension. In the future, we intend to apply for PTE for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovator drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Orphan drug exclusivity, as described below, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the U.S. which, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods for all formulations, dosage forms, and indications of the active moiety and patent terms. This six month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA issued “Written Request” for such a trial, provided that at the time pediatric exclusivity is granted there is not less than nine months of term remaining.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), NDAs and BLAs or supplements to NDAs and BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the treatment is safe

Table of Contents

and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act provides BLA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity-patent or non-patent-for a product if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within a specific time frame.

DEA Regulation

The Controlled Substances Act (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.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance and registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule.

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.

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

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the United States Department of Justice, the DEA and individual United States Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, 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.

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 any products for which we obtain regulatory approval 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 healthcare legislation and regulations, including the ACA. The ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the payments received for any approved drug. Any

Table of Contents

reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government healthcare programs result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. We are unable to predict what these changes may look like in the future.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials, pricing and reimbursement, and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. Importantly, the level of evidence of efficacy and safety necessary to apply for marketing authorization for a drug candidate differs from country to country, the approval process also varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. Typically, if a foreign regulatory authority is satisfied that a company has presented adequate evidence of safety, quality and efficacy, then the regulatory authority will grant a marketing authorization. This foreign regulatory approval process, however, involves risks similar or identical to the risks associated with FDA approval discussed above, and therefore there are no guarantees that any company will be able to obtain the appropriate marketing authorization for any product in any particular country.

Employees and Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2023, we had 186 full-time employees at Fortress and our subsidiaries and partner companies. None of our employees is represented by a labor union. We have retained a number of expert advisors and consultants who help navigate us through different aspects of our business. We consider our relations with our employees to be good and have not experienced any work stoppages, slowdowns or other serious labor problems that have materially impeded our business operations.

Our human capital management objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, and integrating our new and existing employees. The principal purpose of our equity incentive plan is to attract, retain, and motivate selected employees, consultants, and directors through the granting of share-based compensation awards and cash-based bonus awards.

Executive Officers of Fortress

The following table sets forth certain information about our executive officers as of December 31, 2023.

Name Age Position

David Jin 34 Chief Financial Officer and Head of Corporate Development

George Avgerinos, Ph.D. 70 Senior Vice President, Biologics Operations

Michael S. Weiss 57 Executive Vice Chairman, Strategic Development

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D. has served as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors since October 2009 and as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since December 2013. Dr. Rosenwald also currently serves as a member of the board of directors of Fortress partner companies Avenue (Nasdaq: ATXI), Checkpoint (Nasdaq: CKPT), Mustang (Nasdaq: MBIO) and Journey (Nasdaq: DERM). Additionally, Dr. Rosenwald serves as a member of the board of directors of each of Fortress’ private subsidiaries (and has so served in each case since company inception). From 1991 to 2008, Dr. Rosenwald served as the Chairman of Paramount BioCapital, Inc. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Rosenwald has acted as a biotechnology entrepreneur and has been involved in the founding, recapitalization and sale of numerous public and private biotechnology and life science companies. He received his B.S. in finance from Pennsylvania State University and his M.D. from Temple University School of Medicine.

David Jin has served as our Chief Financial Officer since August 2022 and as Head of Corporate Development since May 2020. He also serves as Interim Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Avenue. Previously, he was on the investment team in the Private Equity & Real Assets group at Barings, Director of Corporate Development at Sorrento Therapeutics, Vice President of Healthcare Investment Banking at FBR & Co., and was in the management consulting group at IMS Health (now IQVIA). He holds a B.S. in Industrial Engineering & Management Sciences with a double-major in Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences from Northwestern University.

Table of Contents

George Avgerinos, Ph.D. has served as our Senior Vice President, Biologics Operations since June 2013. Dr. Avgerinos joined us from AbbVie, Inc., where he was Vice President, HUMIRA® Manufacturing Sciences and External Partnerships. In his 22-year career at AbbVie, Inc., formerly Abbott Laboratories, formerly BASF Bioresearch Corporation (BASF), Dr. Avgerinos was responsible for many aspects of biologics development and operations. These included the HUMIRA® operations franchise, global biologics process and manufacturing sciences, biologics CMC, manufacturing operations, and third-party manufacturing. During his tenure, Dr. Avgerinos led and participated in the development of numerous clinical candidates which included the launch of HUMIRA®. He supported expansion of the supply chain to over $9.0 billion in annual global sales. Dr. Avgerinos’ efforts on HUMIRA® have been recognized with numerous awards, including the prestigious Abbott’s Chairman’s award in 2011. Dr. Avgerinos received a B.A. in Biophysics from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Biochemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Avgerinos also provides services for TG Therapeutics, Inc., a related party, pursuant to a shared services agreement.

Michael S. Weiss has served as our Executive Vice Chairman, Strategic Development since February 2014. He currently serves as a member of the board of directors of several of our partner companies, including Checkpoint (Nasdaq: CKPT) and Mustang (Nasdaq: MBIO). Mr. Weiss is currently the Executive Chairman of Mustang Bio, Inc. and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Checkpoint. From March 2015 until February 2019, Mr. Weiss served on the board of Avenue (Nasdaq: ATXI). Since December 2011, Mr. Weiss has served in multiple capacities at TG Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: TGTX), a related party, and is currently its Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. In 1999, Mr. Weiss founded Access Oncology, which was later acquired by Keryx Biopharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: KERX) in 2004. Following the merger, Mr. Weiss remained as CEO of Keryx. He began his professional career as a lawyer with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Mr. Weiss earned his B.S. in Finance from The University of Albany and his J.D. from Columbia Law School.

Available Information

We and certain of our affiliates file annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy and information statements and amendments to reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The SEC also maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our Company and other companies that file materials with the SEC electronically. Copies of our and certain of our affiliates’ reports on Form 10-K, Forms 10-Q and Forms 8-K may be obtained, free of charge, electronically through our website at www.fortressbiotech.com. Our website also includes announcements of investor conferences and events, information on our business strategies and results, corporate governance information, and other news and announcements that investors might find useful or interesting. The information contained on our website is not included in, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Investing in our Common Stock, our 9.375% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock $0.001 par value (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) or any other type of equity or debt securities we may issue from time to time (together, our “Securities”) involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including the consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as the risks, uncertainties and other information set forth in the reports and other materials filed or furnished by our partner companies Avenue, Checkpoint, Journey and Mustang with the SEC, before deciding to invest in our Securities. If any of the following risks or the risks included in the public filings of Avenue, Checkpoint, Journey or Mustang were to materialize, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the market price of our Securities could decline, and you could lose part of or all of your investment in our Securities. In addition, you should be aware that the below stated risks should be read as being applicable to our subsidiaries and partner companies such that, if any of the negative outcomes associated with any such risk is experienced by one of our subsidiaries or partner companies, the value of Fortress’ holdings in such entity may decline. As used throughout this filing, the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress individually, to one or more subsidiaries and/or partner companies, or to all such entities as a group, as dictated by context.

Risks Inherent in Drug Development

Most of our product candidates are in the early stages of development and may not be successfully developed or commercialized, and the product candidates that do advance into clinical trials may not receive regulatory approval.

Most of our existing product candidates remain in the early stages of development and will require substantial further capital expenditures, development, testing and regulatory approvals prior to commercialization. The development and regulatory approval processes can take many years, and it is unlikely that our product candidates, even if successfully developed and approved by the FDA and/or foreign equivalent regulatory bodies, would be commercially available for several years. Only a small percentage of drugs under development successfully obtain regulatory approval and are successfully commercialized. Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to fund development programs, we cannot be sure that any of our product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized, which could result in the failure of our business and a loss of your investment.

Pharmaceutical development has inherent risks. Before we may seek regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate, through well-controlled clinical trials, that our product candidates are effective and have a favorable benefit-risk profile for their target indications. Success in early clinical trials is not necessarily indicative of success in later stage clinical trials, during which product candidates may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or efficacy, despite having progressed through initial clinical testing, which may cause significant setbacks. Further, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials that are not currently anticipated. As a result, product candidates that we advance into clinical trials may never receive regulatory approval.

Even if any of our product candidates are approved, regulatory authorities may approve any such product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may place limitations on our ability to commercialize products at the intended price points, may grant approval contingent on the product’s performance in costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a label that does not include the claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. The regulatory authority may also require the label to contain warnings, contraindications, or precautions that limit the commercialization of the product. In addition, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), or foreign equivalent, may schedule one or more of our product candidates under the Controlled Substances Act, or its foreign equivalent, which could impede such product’s commercial viability. Any of these scenarios could impact the commercial prospects for one or more of our current or future product candidates.

The extensive regulation to which our product candidates are subject may be costly and time consuming, cause anticipated delays, and/or prevent the receipt of the required approvals for commercialization.

The research and clinical development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of any product candidate, including our product candidates, is subject to

Table of Contents

extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States and by comparable health authorities in foreign markets. In the United States, we are not permitted to market a product candidate until the FDA approves such product candidate’s BLA or NDA. The approval process is uncertain, expensive, often spans many years, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In addition to significant and expansive clinical testing requirements, our ability to obtain marketing approval for product candidates depends on the results of required non-clinical testing, including the characterization of the manufactured components of our product candidates and validation of our manufacturing processes. The FDA may determine that our manufacturing processes, testing procedures or equipment and facilities are inadequate to support approval. Further, the FDA has substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process and may change approval policies or interpretations of regulations at any time, which could delay, limit or preclude a product candidate’s approval.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies may delay, limit or refuse approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including, but not limited to:

Foreign approval procedures vary by country and may, in addition to the aforementioned risks, involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. In addition, rapid drug and biological development during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions about the safety and efficacy of certain marketed pharmaceuticals and may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in reviewing new pharmaceuticals based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals may prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Delays in the commencement of our clinical trials, or suspensions or terminations of such trials, could result in increased costs and/or delay our ability to pursue regulatory approvals.

The commencement or resumption of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including, but not necessarily limited to, delays in:

● obtaining regulatory approval to commence or resume a clinical trial;

● identifying, recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators;

Table of Contents

● adding new clinical sites once a trial has begun;

Any delays in the commencement of our clinical trials will delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval for product candidates. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the termination of a given development program or the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

If any of our product candidates causes unacceptable adverse safety events in clinical trials, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize such product, preventing us from generating revenue from such products’ sale. Alternatively, even if a product candidate is approved for marketing, future adverse events could lead to the withdrawal of such product from the market.

Suspensions or delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in increased costs and/or delay or prevent our ability to complete development of that product candidate or generate product revenues.

Once a clinical trial has begun, patient recruitment and enrollment may be slower than we anticipate due to the nature of the clinical trial plan, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for participation in the study or other factors. Clinical trials may also be delayed as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results or difficulties in obtaining sufficient quantities of product manufactured in accordance with regulatory requirements and on a timely basis. Further, a clinical trial may be modified, suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, an ethics committee or a data safety monitoring committee overseeing the clinical trial, any clinical trial site with respect to that site, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities, due to a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to:

● stopping rules contained in the protocol;

● lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Table of Contents

Regulatory requirements and guidance may change, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Any such change may require us to resubmit clinical trial protocols to IRBs, which may in turn impact a clinical trial’s cost, timing, and likelihood of success. If any clinical trial is delayed, suspended, or terminated, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for that product candidate will be delayed, and the commercial prospects, if any, for the product candidate may suffer. In addition, many of these factors may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

If our competitors develop treatments for any of our product candidates’ target indications and those competitor products are approved more quickly, marketed more successfully or demonstrated to be more effective, the commercial opportunity for our product candidates will be reduced or eliminated.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to rapid and intense technological change. We face, and will continue to face, competition in the development and marketing of our product candidates from academic institutions, government agencies, research institutions and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, new developments, including the development of other drug technologies and methods of preventing the incidence of disease, occur in the pharmaceutical industry at a rapid pace. Any of these developments may render one or more of our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive.

Competitors may seek to develop alternative formulations that do not directly infringe on our in-licensed patent rights. The commercial opportunity for one or more of our product candidates could be significantly harmed if competitors are able to develop alternative formulations outside the scope of our in-licensed patents. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

● capital resources;

● development resources, including personnel and technology;

● clinical trial experience;

● regulatory experience;

● expertise in prosecution of intellectual property rights; and

● manufacturing, distribution and sales and marketing capabilities.

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we are able to, or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property or exclusivity rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, safe, useful and/or less costly than ours and may be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. We will also face competition from these third parties in establishing clinical trial sites, in patient registration for clinical trials, and in identifying and in-licensing new product candidates.

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of the therapies that underpin many of our product candidates may damage public perception of our product candidates, or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

If any of the technologies underpinning our product candidates, including gene therapy, is claimed to be unsafe, such product candidate may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The success of our gene therapy platforms in particular depends upon physicians who specialize in treating the diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments involving our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. Adverse events in our clinical

Table of Contents

trials, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could lead to increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that do obtain approval and/or a decrease in demand for any such product candidates. Concern about environmental spread of our products, whether real or anticipated, may also hinder the commercialization of our products.

The making, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of controlled substances are subject to regulation by state, federal and foreign law enforcement and other regulatory agencies.

Controlled substances are subject to state, federal and foreign laws and regulations regarding their manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution. Controlled substances are regulated under the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”) and regulations of the DEA. IV tramadol, under development by our partner company Avenue, will be subject to these regulations.

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse and no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.

Various states also independently regulate controlled substances. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule drugs as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug when the DEA does so, in other states there must be rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any controlled substance drug product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval and adverse scheduling could impair the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or our collaborators must also obtain separate state registrations in order to be able to obtain, handle and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions from the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

For any of our products classified as controlled substances, we and our suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, customers and distributors are required to obtain and maintain applicable registrations from state, federal and foreign law enforcement and regulatory agencies and comply with state, federal and foreign laws and regulations regarding the manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of controlled substances. There is a risk that DEA regulations may limit the supply of the compounds used in clinical trials for our product candidates and the ability to produce and distribute our products in the volume needed to both meet commercial demand and build inventory to mitigate possible supply disruptions.

Regulations associated with controlled substances govern manufacturing, labeling, packaging, testing, dispensing, production and procurement quotas, recordkeeping, reporting, handling, shipment and disposal. These regulations increase the personnel needs and the expense associated with development and commercialization of product candidates including controlled substances. The DEA, and some states, conduct periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to obtain and maintain required registrations or comply with any applicable regulations could delay or preclude us from developing and commercializing our product candidates containing controlled substances and subject us to enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings. Because of their restrictive nature, these regulations could limit commercialization of any of our product candidates that are classified as controlled substances, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

The FDA limits regulatory approval for our product candidates to those specific indications and conditions for which clinical safety and efficacy have been demonstrated.

Any regulatory approval is limited to the indications for use and related treatment of those specific diseases set forth in the approval for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by the FDA. In addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product also requires FDA approval. If we are not able to obtain

Table of Contents

FDA approval for any desired future indications for our products, our ability to effectively market and sell our products may be reduced and our business may be adversely affected.

While physicians may prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s label or that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities (“off label uses”), our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications that are specifically approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the U.S. generally do not regulate the practice of medicine or behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies regarding the promotion of off-label use.

If our promotional activities fail to comply with these regulations or guidelines, we may be subject to compliance or enforcement actions, including Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, by, these authorities. In addition, our failure to follow FDA laws, regulations and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising may cause the FDA to suspend or withdraw an approved product from the market, request a recall, institute fines, or could result in disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, corrective advertising, injunctions or criminal prosecution, any of which could harm our business.

If the FDA does not conclude that a product candidate satisfies the requirements for the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for such product candidate under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for the product candidate will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in either case may not be successful.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDCA, would allow an NDA we submit to FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved compounds, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for these product candidates, and complications and risks associated with these product candidates, would likely substantially increase. We could need to obtain more additional funding, which could result in significant dilution to the ownership interests of our then existing stockholders to the extent we issue equity securities or convertible debt. We cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain such additional financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway would likely result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which would likely materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization in a timely manner, or at all.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2) over the last few years, certain brand-name pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its Section 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2). In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to faster product development or earlier approval.

Table of Contents

Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved under Section 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

Risks Pertaining to the Need for and Impact of Existing and Additional Financing Activities

We have historically financed a significant portion of our growth and operations in part through the assumption of debt. Should an event of default occur under any applicable loan documents, our business would be materially adversely affected. Further, our current credit arrangement with Oaktree restricts our and certain of our subsidiaries’ and partner companies’ abilities to take certain actions.

At December 31, 2023, the total amount of debt outstanding, net of the debt discount, was $60.9 million. If we default on our obligations, the holders of our debt may declare the outstanding amounts immediately payable together with accrued interest, and/or take possession of any pledged collateral. If an event of default occurs, we may be unable to cure it within the applicable cure period, if at all. If the maturity of our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not have sufficient funds available for repayment and we may be unable to borrow or obtain sufficient funds to replace the accelerated indebtedness on terms acceptable to us, or at all. In addition, current or future debt obligations may limit our ability to finance future operations, satisfy capital needs, or to engage in, expand or pursue our business activities. Such restrictions may also prevent us from engaging in activities that could be beneficial to our business and our stockholders unless we repay the outstanding debt, which may not be desirable or possible.

On August 27, 2020, we entered into a $60 million senior secured credit agreement (the “Oaktree Agreement” and the debt thereunder, the “Oaktree Note”) with Oaktree Fund Administration, LLC and the lenders from time-to-time party thereto (collectively, “Oaktree”). At December 31, 2023 the amount outstanding under the Oaktree Agreement was $50 million. The Oaktree Agreement contains certain affirmative and negative covenants restricting our and certain of our subsidiaries’ abilities to take certain actions, especially as pertains indebtedness, liens, investments, affiliate transactions, acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, prepayment of other indebtedness, dividends and other distributions (subject in each case to exceptions). The Oaktree Agreement also contains financial covenants obligating us to maintain a minimum liquidity amount and a minimum amount of revenue, in both cases subject to exceptions. The breach of any such provisions (even, potentially, in an immaterial manner) could result in an event of default under the Oaktree Agreement, the announcement and impact of which could have a negative impact on the trading prices of our securities. The restrictions imposed by such provisions may also inhibit our and certain of our subsidiaries and partner companies’ ability to enter into certain transactions or arrangements that management otherwise believes would be in our or such partner companies’ best interests, such as dispositions that would result in cash inflows to Fortress and/or our subsidiaries and partner companies, or acquisitions or financings that would promote future growth.

We have a history of operating losses that is expected to continue, and we are unable to predict the extent of future losses, whether we will be able to sustain current revenues or whether we will ever achieve or sustain profitability.

We continue to generate operating losses in all periods including losses from operations of approximately $142.3 million and $203.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. At December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $694.9 million. We expect to make substantial expenditures and incur increasing operating costs and interest expense in the future, and our accumulated deficit will increase significantly as we expand development and clinical trial activities for our product candidates and finance investments in certain of our existing and new subsidiaries in accordance with our growth strategy. Our losses have had, and are expected to continue to have, an adverse impact on our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity.

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

Table of Contents

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any revenue from our development stage products, and we do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue from such development-stage products. Our ability to generate revenue from such development-stage products 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 the value of our company 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, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

To fund our operations and service our debt securities, which may be deemed to include our Series A Preferred Stock, we will be required to generate a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash depends on a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, and any failure to meet our debt obligations would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Common Stock and/or Series A Preferred Stock to decline.

Prevailing economic conditions and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, may affect our ability to make payments on our debt. If we do not generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our debt obligations, we may have to undertake alternative financing plans, such as refinancing or restructuring our debt, selling assets, reducing or delaying capital investments or seeking to raise additional capital. Alternatively, as we have done in the past, we may also elect to refinance certain of our debt, for example, to extend maturities. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. If we are unable to access the capital markets, whether because of the condition of those capital markets or our own financial condition or reputation within such capital markets, we may be unable to refinance our debt. In addition, any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. Our inability to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our debt obligations or to refinance our obligations on commercially

Table of Contents

reasonable terms, or at all, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Repayment of our indebtedness is dependent in part on the generation of cash flow by Journey and its ability to make such cash available to us, by dividend, debt repayment or otherwise. Journey may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable us to make payments in respect of our indebtedness. Each of our subsidiaries, including Journey, is a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries.

Our ability to continue to reduce our indebtedness will depend upon factors including our future operating performance, our ability to access the capital markets to refinance existing debt and prevailing economic conditions and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. We can provide no assurance of the amount by which we will reduce our debt, if at all. In addition, servicing our debt will result in a reduction in the amount of our cash flow available for other purposes, including operating costs and capital expenditures that could improve our competitive position and results of operations.

We may need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which may force us to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our R&D programs, commercialization efforts or planned acquisitions and potentially change our growth strategy.

Our R&D programs will require substantial additional capital for research, preclinical testing and clinical trials, establishing pilot scale and commercial scale manufacturing processes and facilities, and establishing and developing quality control, regulatory, marketing, sales, and administrative capabilities to support these programs. We expect to fund our R&D activities from a combination of cash generated from royalties and milestones from our partners in various past, ongoing, and future collaborations, and through additional equity or debt financings from third parties. These financings could depress the trading prices of our Securities. If additional funds are required to support our operations and such funds cannot be obtained on favorable terms, we may not be able to develop products, which will adversely impact our growth strategy.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. During the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, we incurred R&D expenses of approximately $101.7 million and $134.2 million, respectively. We expect to continue to spend significant amounts on our growth strategy. We believe that our current cash and cash equivalents will enable us to continue to fund operations in the normal course of business for at least the next 12 months from the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve profitability, we expect to seek to finance potential cash needs.

Under current SEC regulations, if at the time we file our Annual Report on Form 10-K our public float is less than $75 million, and for so long as our public float remains less than $75 million, the amount we can raise through primary public offerings of securities in any twelve-month period using shelf registration statements is limited to an aggregate of one-third of our public float, which is referred to as the “baby shelf rules.” SEC regulations permit us to use the highest closing sales price of our common stock (or the average of the last bid and last ask prices of our common stock) on any day within 60 days of sales under the registration statement to calculate our public float.

As of the date of this Form 10-K, our public float was less than $75 million. As a result, for sales following the date of this Form 10-K, and until we again have a public float with a value in exceeds of $75 million, if ever, we only have the capacity to sell shares up to one-third of our public float under shelf registration statements in any twelve-month period. If our public float decreases, the amount of securities we may sell under our Form S-3 shelf registration statements will also decrease.

Our ability to obtain additional funding when needed, changes to our operating plans, our existing and anticipated working capital needs, the acceleration or modification of our planned R&D activities, expenditures, acquisitions and growth strategy, increased expenses or other events may affect our need for additional capital in the future and require us to seek additional funding sooner or on different terms than anticipated. In addition, if we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we might have to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our R&D programs and commercialization efforts and potentially change our growth strategy, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial

Table of Contents

condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline. The terms of our existing debt arrangements, including that with Oaktree, have and will continue to inhibit our and our subsidiaries’ abilities to raise capital.

We may be unable to generate returns for our investors if our partner companies and subsidiaries, several of which have limited or no operating history, have no commercialized revenue generating products or, if not yet profitable, cannot obtain additional third-party financing.

As part of our growth strategy, we have made and will likely continue to make substantial financial and operational commitments in our subsidiaries, which often have limited or no operating history, have no commercialized revenue generating products, and require additional third-party financing to fund product and services development or acquisitions. Our business depends in large part on the ability of one or more of our subsidiaries and/or partner companies to innovate, in-license, develop or acquire successful biopharmaceutical products and/or acquire companies in increasingly competitive and highly regulated markets. If certain of our subsidiaries and/or partner companies do not successfully obtain additional third-party financing to commercialize products, or are not acquired in change-of-control transactions that result in cash distributions, as applicable, the value of our businesses and our ownership stakes in our partner companies may be materially adversely affected, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Raising additional funds by issuing securities or through licensing or lending arrangements may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing Common Stock (or other Securities that are convertible into or exercisable for shares of Common Stock), the share ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. We have also entered into financing arrangements to raise capital for our subsidiaries under which Common Stock is or may be issuable to investors in lieu of cash, upon certain conditions being met; in the event such issuances take place, they will also be dilutive of the stakes of existing stockholders. Any future debt financings may impose covenants that restrict our operations, including by limiting our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, redeem our stock, make certain financial commitments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions, among other restrictions. In addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing or sublicensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Risks Pertaining to Our Existing Revenue Stream from Journey Medical Corporation

Future revenue based on sales of our dermatology products, Qbrexza, Accutane, Amzeeq, Zilxi, Targadox, Exelderm and Luxamend, may be lower than expected or lower than in previous periods.

The vast majority of our operating income for the foreseeable future is expected to come from the sale of our dermatology products through our partner company Journey. Any setback that may occur with respect to such products could significantly impair our financial condition, cash flows and/or operating results and/or reduce the value of our Securities. Setbacks for such products could include, but are not limited to, issues related to: supply chain, shipping; distribution; demand; manufacturing; product safety; product quality; marketing; government regulation, including but not limited to pricing or reimbursement; licensing and approval; intellectual property rights; competition with existing or new products, including third-party generic competition; product acceptance by physicians, other licensed medical professionals, and patients; and higher than expected total rebates, returns or recalls. Also, a significant portion of Journey’s sales derive from products that are without patent protection and/or are or may become subject to third party generic competition; the introduction of new competitor products, or increased market share of existing competitor products, could have a significant adverse effect on our operating income.

We face challenges as our products face generic competition and/or losses of exclusivity.

Journey’s products do and may compete with well-established products, both branded and generic, with similar or the same indications. We face increased competition from manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical products, who may submit applications to FDA seeking to market generic versions of our products. In connection with these applications, the generic drug companies may seek to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents through litigation. When patents

Table of Contents

covering certain of our products (if applicable) expire or are successfully challenged through litigation or in USPTO proceedings, if a generic company launches a competing product “at risk,” or when the regulatory or licensed exclusivity for our products (if applicable) expires or is otherwise lost, we may face generic competition as a result.

A significant portion of our sales derive from products that are without patent protection and/or are or may become subject to third-party generic competition, the introduction of new competitor products, or an increase in market share of existing competitor products, any of which could have a significant adverse impact on our operating income. Three of our marketed products, Qbrexza, Amzeeq and Zilxi, as well as one of our product candidates, DFD-29, currently have patent protection. Three of our marketed products, Accutane, Targadox, and Exelderm, do not have patent protection or otherwise are not eligible for patent protection. Accutane currently competes in the Isotretinoin market with five other therapeutically equivalent A/B rated products. Targadox currently competes with one therapeutically equivalent A/B rated generic product. Exelderm may face A/B rated generic competition in the future.

Generic versions are generally significantly less expensive than branded versions, and, where available, may be required to be utilized before or in preference to the branded version by third-party payors, or substituted by pharmacies. Accordingly, when a branded product loses its market exclusivity, it normally faces intense price competition from generic forms of the product. To successfully compete for business with managed care and pharmacy benefits management organizations, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits, but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care. Any reduction in sales of our products or the prices we receive for our products as a result of generic competition could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Any disruptions to the capabilities, composition, size or existence of Journey’s field sales force may have a significant adverse impact on our existing revenue stream. Further, our ability to effectively market and sell any future products that we may develop and for which we receive marketing authorization, will depend on our ability to establish and maintain sales and marketing capabilities or to enter into agreements with third parties to market, distribute and sell any such products.

Journey’s field sales force has been and is expected to continue to be an important contributor to our commercial success. Any disruptions to our relationship with such field sales force or the professional employer organization that employs our field sales force, could materially adversely affect our product sales. Journey currently relies, and may continue to rely, on professional employer organizations and staffing organizations for the employment of its field sales force.

The establishment, development, and/or expansion of a field sales force, either by us or certain of our partners or vendors, or the establishment of a contract field sales force to market any products for which we may have or receive marketing approval is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any such product launch or compromise the successful commercialization of such products. If we are unable to establish and maintain sales and marketing capabilities or any other non-technical capabilities necessary to commercialize any products that may be successfully developed, we will need to contract with third parties to market and sell such products. We may not be able to establish or maintain arrangements with third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

If our products are not included in managed care organizations’ formularies or coverage by other organizations, our products’ utilization and market shares may be negatively impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In the United States, continued sales and coverage, including formulary inclusion without the need for a prior authorization or step edit therapy, of our products 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 of our currently marketed products or those which we may acquire or develop in the future.

Table of Contents

Managed care organizations and other third-party payors try to negotiate the pricing of medical services and products to control their costs. Managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers typically develop formularies to reduce their cost for medications. Formularies are based on the prices and therapeutic benefits of available products. Due to their lower costs, generic products are often favored. The breadth of the products covered by formularies varies considerably from one managed care organization to another, and many formularies include alternative and competitive products for treatment of particular medical conditions. Failure to be included in such formularies or to achieve favorable formulary status may negatively impact the utilization and market share of our products. If our products are not included within an adequate number of formularies or adequate reimbursement levels are not provided, or if those policies increasingly favor generic products, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Reimbursement for our products and product candidates may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably.

We have obtained approval for some products, and intend to seek approval for other product candidates, to commercialize in both the United States and in countries and territories outside the United States. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign countries, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those countries relating to such products. In some foreign countries, particularly in the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates, if approved, will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for any of our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

FBIO US Equity

FBIO · 10-K · period ended 2023-12-31

Item 1. Business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

FBIO US Equity☆

FBIO · 10-K · period ended 2023-12-31

Item 1. Business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

FBIO US Equity