10-K

tm211024-1_10k.htm

10-K

tm211024-1_10k - none - 11.8438006s

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

(Mark one)

☒

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

☐

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 001-36020

Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(267) 759-3680

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Common Stock Warrants ONTXW The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,”, “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

As of June 30, 2020, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $98.4 million, based on the last reported sale price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market.

There were 236,612,391 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of March 1, 2021.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s 2021 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K are incorporated by reference into Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ONCONOVA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

INDEX TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K

Page

PART I

Item 1: Business 3

Item 1A: Risk Factors 30

Item 1B: Unresolved Staff Comments 42

Item 2: Properties 43

Item 3: Legal Proceedings 43

Item 4: Mine Safety Disclosures 43

PART II

Item 8: Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 57

Item 9A: Controls and Procedures 57

Item 9B: Other Information 57

PART III

Item 10: Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 59

Item 11: Executive Compensation 59

Item 14: Principal Accounting Fees and Services 59

PART IV

Item 15: Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 60

Item 16: Form 10-K Summary 60

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) includes forward-looking statements. We may, in some cases, use terms such as “believes,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “may,” “could,” “might,” “will,” “should,” “approximately” or other words that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places throughout this Annual Report and include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs, projections, outlook, analyses or current expectations concerning, among other things, our ongoing and planned preclinical development and clinical trials, the timing of and our ability to make regulatory filings and obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, protection of our intellectual property portfolio, the degree of clinical utility of our products, particularly in specific patient populations, our ability to develop commercial and manufacturing functions, expectations regarding clinical trial data, our results of operations, cash needs, financial condition, liquidity, prospects, growth and strategies, the industry in which we operate and the trends that may affect the industry or us.

By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events, competitive dynamics and industry change, and depend on the economic circumstances that may or may not occur in the future or may occur on longer or shorter timelines than anticipated. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report, we caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and that our actual results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and the development of the industry in which we operate may differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report.

You should also read carefully the factors described in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report and elsewhere to better understand the risks and uncertainties inherent in our business and underlying any forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements in this report and you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. These factors include, without limitations, the risks related to:

•

our need for additional financing for our future clinical trials and other operations, and our ability to obtain sufficient funds on acceptable terms when needed, and our plans and future needs to scale back operations if adequate financing is not obtained;

•

our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing;

•

the success and timing of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including site initiation and patient enrollment, and regulatory approval of protocols for future clinical trials;

•

our ability to enter into, maintain and perform collaboration agreements with other pharmaceutical companies, for funding and commercialization of our clinical drug product candidates or preclinical compounds, and our ability to achieve certain milestones under those agreements;

•

the difficulties in obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates, and the labeling under any approval we may obtain;

•

our plans and ability to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates;

•

our failure to recruit or retain key scientific or management personnel or to retain our executive officers;

•

the size and growth of the potential markets for our product candidates and our ability to serve those markets;

•

regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;

•

the rate and degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates;

•

obtaining and maintaining intellectual property protection for our product candidates and our proprietary technology;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

•

the successful development of our commercialization capabilities, including sales and marketing capabilities;

•

recently enacted and future legislation and regulation regarding the healthcare system;

•

the success of competing therapies and products that are or may become available;

•

our ability to maintain the listing of our securities on a national securities exchange;

•

the potential for third party disputes and litigation; and

•

the performance of third parties, including contract research organizations (“CROs”) and third-party manufacturers.

Any forward-looking statements that we make in this Annual Report speak only as of the date of such statement, and we undertake no obligation to update such statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

Onconova Therapeutics, Inc., sometimes referred to as “we” or the “Company,” is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel products for patients with cancer. We have proprietary targeted anti-cancer agents designed to disrupt specific cellular pathways that are important for cancer cell proliferation. We believe that the product candidates in our pipeline have the potential to be efficacious in a variety of cancers with unmet medical need. We have the following two clinical-stage programs: 1. ON 123300, multi-kinase inhibitor in solid tumors; and 2. oral rigosertib alone or in combination with PD-1 inhibitors for treatment of KRAS-mutated solid tumors. We are currently evaluating potential compounds for in-licensing opportunities.

We plan to continue to focus on the development of our novel multi kinase inhibitor targeting CDK 4/6, ON 123300, and oral rigosertib in KRAS mutated cancers. We will direct our efforts to these programs. We are also reviewing potential compounds for in-licensing opportunities.

On August 24, 2020, we announced topline results from the INSPIRE trial, which assessed the efficacy and safety of IV rigosertib in HR-MDS patients. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved survival for patients randomized to IV rigosertib compared to the control arm. Based on the results of the INSPIRE trial and the previously conducted ONTIME Phase 3 trial, we currently do not plan to further pursue intravenous rigosertib for treating HR-MDS.

Product Candidates / Compounds

ON 123300 — Differentiated Multi-Kinase Inhibitor Targeting CDK4/6

We believe based on data from preclinical studies, that ON 123300 has the potential to overcome the limitations of the current generation of approved cyclin dependent kinase (CDK 4/6) inhibitors. Pursuant to a license agreement with Temple University dated January 1, 1999 as amended March 21, 2013, we licensed compounds including ON 123300 from Temple University. ON 123300 monolactate (ON 123300) is a novel multi kinase inhibitor that targets both CDK4/6 as well as other tyrosine kinases believed to drive tumor proliferation. The below table depicts the inhibitory concentration by 50% (IC50) of ON 123300 and Palbociclib, which is a quantitative measure indicating the concentration of each drug needed to inhibit, in vitro, these listed kinases by 50%.

Kinase ON 123300 IC50 (nM) PALBOCICLIB IC50 (nM)

CDK 4/cyclin D1 3.87 5.36

CDK 6/cyclin D1 9.82 3.76

ON 123300 Investigator Brochure v1.

One such tyrosine kinase ARK5, also known as NUAK1, regulates AKT dependent cell survival and migration (perhaps involved with metastases) through inhibition of cellular metabolism. The combination

TABLE OF CONTENTS

of CDK and ARK5 inhibitors in the same molecular entity is proposed to have a differentiated multi-kinase effect on cancer cells by simultaneously inhibiting both cell cycle (cytostatic) and cellular metabolism (cytotoxic) pathways through CDK and ARK5, respectively. We and our partner, HanX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“HanX”), recently have initiated clinical studies to begin evaluating whether these findings from preclinical studies may translate to clinical activity or clinical benefits in cancer patients.

In certain in vitro models, the kinase inhibitory profile of ON 123300 had the highest activity against CDK4, CDK6, ARK5, FGFR1, PDGFRß and PI3K-δ, all of which are associated with the growth, survival and metastasis of human tumor cells (Reddy, 2014). In an in vitro investigation of ON 123300 against a broad spectrum of human tumor cell lines, ON 123300 displayed potent antiproliferative activity, with 50% growth inhibitory concentrations (GI50) ranging from 0.02 μM to 1.5 μM. In these in vitro models, ON 123300 exhibited a broad range of activity against a wide spectrum of cell lines of both hematological origin (lymphoma, leukemia and myeloma) as well as solid tumors derived from multiple organ sites. Studies on drug-resistant human tumor cell lines suggested that ON 123300 is not a multidrug resistance gene (mdr1) substrate and may be active against drug-resistant tumor cell lines (IBv.1 2020; Reddy, 2014). The activity of ON 123300 does not appear to be affected by the overexpression of MDR-1 and induced apoptosis in both ibrutinib-sensitive and ibrutinib-resistant patient derived cells (Divakar, 2016). The ability of ON 123300 to inhibit the CDK4/6/RB1 pathway has also been shown in pre-clinical testing of mantle cell lymphoma (Divakar, 2016), multiple myeloma (Perumal, 2016) and colorectal cancer (IBv.1 2020).

The effectiveness of first-generation non-selective CDK inhibitors (Selicilib/roscovitine and Alvocidib/flavopiridol) in early trials was limited due to toxicities (Blachly 2013). Second-generation compounds (palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) specifically inhibit CDK4 and 6, thereby inhibiting retinoblastoma (RB) protein phosphorylation. The second generation CDK4/6 inhibitors have substantially improved clinical outcomes for patients with hormonal-receptor (HR) positive metastatic breast cancer (Hortobagyi 2018, Sledge 2017, Finn 2016). Several CDK4/6 inhibitors have recently been approved and are now standard of care in combination with hormonal therapy for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

In December 2017, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with HanX, a company focused on development of novel oncology products, for the further development, registration and commercialization in China of ON 123300. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and will receive regulatory and commercial milestone payments, as well as royalties on any future Chinese sales if the drug is approved. The key feature of the 2017 collaboration was that HanX provided all funding required for the Chinese Investigational New Drug Application (a “IND”) thereby enabling the studies necessary in order to seek IND approval by the National Medical Products Administration (Chinese FDA). In the fourth quarter of 2019, HanX filed an IND with the Chinese FDA which was approved on January 6, 2020. We and HanX also intended for these studies underlying the Chinese IND approval, to meet the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) standards for IND approval. Accordingly, such studies were used by us for an IND filing with the US FDA. In September 2020, a Phase 1 Study with ON123300 in cancer patients was initiated in China. We maintain global rights to the study and study data outside of China.

Our IND submission to the US FDA was submitted in November 2020 and the FDA Study May Proceed letter was issued in December 2020. Enrollment into the US phase 1 study is anticipated to commence in the first half of 2021. The study will assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of ON 123300 administered orally at increasing doses starting at 40 mg daily for consecutive 28-day cycles in patients (n=36) with relapsed/refractory advanced cancer, including but not limited to, patients with breast cancer that is resistant to approved second generation CDK 4/6 inhibitors as well as patients diagnosed with advanced Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In partnership with HanX, a complementary Phase 1 study for patients with advanced relapsed/refractory cancer has been initiated in China at two sites and the first patient was enrolled on September 15, 2020. The initial dose cohort has been completed and the second dose cohort is enrolling. No dose limiting toxicities (DLT) have been observed to date. Collectively, these two Phase 1 studies are expected to provide data regarding the safety profile of ON 123300 and potentially preliminary efficacy signals in patients with advanced cancer.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Positive preclinical data was announced at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting, which took place April 1-5, 2017 in Washington, DC, for ON 123300. We believe our CDK inhibitor is differentiated from other agents in the market or in development due to its multi kinase inhibition.

Retinoblastoma (Rb) protein is a master regulator of cell division and is critical to several cellular processes including senescence, self-renewal, replication and apoptosis (Engel, 2015). It is believed that inactivation of Rb by CDKs leads to malignant cell formation and occurs in the pathogenesis of most cancers. In a preclinical Retinoblastoma (Rb) positive xenograft model for breast cancer, ON 123300 activity was shown to be similar to palbociclib (Pfizer’s Ibrance ®). Moreover, based on the same preclinical model, ON 123300 may have the potential advantage of reduced neutropenia when compared to palbociclib. Whereas both compounds resulted in decreased RBC and platelet counts in this preclinical model system, palbociclib was found to have a more prominent and statistically significant (P< 0.05) inhibitory effect on neutrophil counts when compared to ON 123300. These results would need to be replicated in clinical trials.

In vitro studies compared the growth inhibitory activity of ON 123300 and palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines with mutated or deleted RB, which demonstrated resistance to palbociclib but retained sensitivity towards ON 123300 (IBv.1 2020). Further analyses using mantle cell lymphoma cells indicated that ON 123300 was able to induce cell death via induction of apoptosis by inhibiting the AKT/PI3K pathway while palbociclib treatment was only able to induce cell cycle arrest due to the inhibition of CDK4/6 (Divakar, 2016). ON 123300 treatment was associated with the presence of several apoptotic markers (PARP, caspase 3, caspase 7 and caspase 9) and ON 123300 (but not palbociclib) led to the generation of apoptotic cells. Overall, apoptosis following ON 123300 exposure has been observed in the following cell lines: breast cancer (IBv.1 2020, Reddy, 2014), mantle cell lymphoma (Divakar, 2016), multiple myeloma (Perumal, 2016) and colorectal cancer (IBv.1 2020).

In addition to CDK4/6 and PI3 Kinase, ON 123300 may inhibit ARK5 (NUAK1) (IC50 of 4.95 nM) (IBv.1 2020, Reddy, 2014) while palbociclib does not. ARK5 is a member of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) family and is thought to function as a key regulator of cellular energy homeo-stasis (Liu, 2012) and is important in a number of cancer cell survival pathways. Overexpression of ARK5 is associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (Cui, 2013), ovarian cancers (Phippen, 2016) and glioblastoma (Lu, 2013). ARK5 is involved in the increased invasiveness, migration and metastatic potential of breast cancer cells (Chang, 2012), colorectal cancer (Kusakai, 2004), gastric cancer (Chen, 2017), and multiple myeloma (Suzuki et al., 2005). ON 123300 inhibits ARK5 resulting in down regulation of the mTOR/MYC/RB1 pathways leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis.

Because ARK5 activity is now recognized as crucial in promoting cancer cell migration and invasion (Kusaki, 2004) the effect of ON 123300 treatment may have an impact on cell migration and wound healing. In certain in vitro models, ON 123300 was able to inhibit the percent migration of U87 cells in a concentration-dependent manner. The time and concentrations that were tested did not result in cell death but did inhibit cell division at the higher concentrations (IBv.1 2020). The ability of ON 123300 to inhibit cell migration was compared to palbociclib using a wound healing model. Triple negative cancer cell migration was inhibited for 72 hours in the presence of ON 123300 but not in the presence of palbociclib (IBv.1 2020).

The pathogenesis and progression of breast cancer is linked to C-Myc expression which is subsequently dependent on ARK5 activity. The inhibition of ARK5 has been shown to be lethal in MYC overexpressing tumors (Liu, 2012) and targeting ARK5 in the inhibitory profile of ON 123300 has the potential to overcome the emergence of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors due to the loss of retinoblastoma function and C-Myc overexpression. Preclinical studies with tumor cell lines suggest that several malignancies including HR-positive breast cancer, colorectal carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, may be clinically responsive to ON 123300 exposure (Reddy, 2014, Divakar, 2016, Perumal, 2016). Furthermore, ON 123300 has been tested in five murine xenograft models (breast cancer including triple negative disease, colorectal, mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma) and was found to have on-target activity and be non-toxic to the animals (Reddy, 2014; Divakar, 2016; Perumal, 2016; and IBv.1 2020).

Cancer cells can lose RB function through mutation and become resistant or insensitive to palbociclib. Generally, second generation agents have not been shown to be suitable for single agent therapy and must

TABLE OF CONTENTS

be used in combination with hormonal therapy. In addition, the rate of disease progression that occurs, especially in patients with visceral disease (Hortobagyi 2018), may benefit from the novel inhibitory effects of ON 123300. This hypothesis needs to be proven in a clinical trial.

Unfortunately, mechanisms of acquired resistance are emerging with the approved CDK4/6 inhibitors leading to progression in patients with breast cancer (Spring, 2019; Knudsen, 2020). Therefore, the unmet medical need supports development of the next (third) generation CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced HR+/HER- breast cancer. The inhibitory effect of ON 123300 may provide a therapeutic strategy to optimize efficacy of CDK 4/6 inhibition and reduce emergence of resistance.

ON 123300 has the most favorable IC50 value in comparison to the approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) and highest single agent cytotoxicity (Perumal, 2016, Divakar, 2016).

Based on data from continuous dosing studies in rats and monkeys the safety profile of ON 123300 is anticipated to be similar to the approved CDK4/6 inhibitors with myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity being most common. Management of these adverse events is expected to follow that used for the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors. We believe that the proposed mechanism of action of ON 123300, the unmet medical need of the advanced cancers potentially targeted by ON 123300 and the anticipated safety profile of ON 123300 as seen in pre-clinical studies, support conducting Phase 1 clinical studies.

Clinical development of ON 123300 for both breast cancer as well as other solid tumors in clinical trials is warranted based on the preclinical in vitro studies as well as the xenograft models. Onconova plans to advance testing whether ON 123300 will demonstrate improved activity and/or safety in patients with advanced malignancies.

Oral Rigosertib and PD-1 Combination in KRAS-Mutated Cancers

We are currently supporting investigator-initiated studies that are exploring the use of rigosertib for cancers driven by mutated Ras genes including a Phase 1 study of rigosertib in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor for patients with progressive K-Ras mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The NSCLC study is open and continues to enroll patients. The objectives of this study are to identify the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for future studies and characterize the safety profile of the combination treatment. Results are expected in 2021.

An investigator-initiated Phase 1b/2 study with rigosertib monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma associated with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB-SCC) is planned. A preclinical study is also currently investigating rigosertib in clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC). We anticipate, additional investigator initiated studies in RAS driven cancers in combination with PD-1 inhibitors, including in metastatic melanoma.

Rare Disease Program in “RASopathies”

Based on the mechanism of action data published in the journal Cell in 2016, we initiated a collaborative development program focusing on a group of rare diseases with a well-defined molecular basis in expression or defects involving the Ras effector pathways. Since RASopathies are rare congenital diseases affecting young children, we embarked on a multifaceted collaborative program involving patient advocacy, government and academic organizations. RASopathies are usually caused by germline mutations in genes that alter the RAS subfamily and mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) that control signal transduction and are among the most common genetic syndromes. Together, this group of diseases can impact more than 1 in 1,000 individuals, according to RASopathies.Net.

In January 2018, we entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Under the terms of the CRADA, the NCI initiated and conducted preclinical laboratory studies on rigosertib in pediatric cancer associated RASopathies. As part of the CRADA, we provided rigosertib and initial funding towards the non-clinical studies. The NCI has conducted preclinical studies with cell lines from two pediatric solid tumors (rhabdomyosarcoma and neuroblastoma), including xenograft models. For both tumor cell lines, in vitro rigosertib exposure was associated with reduced cell viability associated with destabilization of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

microtubules, mitotic arrest and apoptosis. In a rhabdomyosarcoma xenograft model, rigosertib treatment had a delayed time to tumor progression and prolonged survival in the animals treated with rigosertib. (Kowalczyk, 2020)

Studies using leukemia cells from the rare childhood RASopathy, known as Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia (JMML), have been conducted. In preliminary in vitro studies performed at Notable Labs, JMML cell killing was observed following rigosertib exposure. Murine xenograft studies performed at the University of California, San Francisco and funded through the Leukemia Lymphoma Society, evaluated rigosertib in this Ras-mutated disease. Further studies with JMML and rigosertib are under consideration.

COVID-19 Disease

In July 2020, based on initial in vitro data suggesting that rigosertib inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 and rigosertib alone induces the dysregulation of RIG-I like receptor signaling (anti-viral defense pathway) and T cell exhaustion signaling in BW-90 cells (Silverman, Blood, Abstract # 4231, 2019), we submitted applications with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and a separate application to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), with the goal of obtaining funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct human studies with rigosertib in COVID-19 patients. Based on the reported mechanism of action which modulates the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway involved in proliferative signaling, we believe rigosertib may play an important role in inhibiting COVID-19 replication in human cells and specifically lung tissue, which is a primary source of serious disease. We await responses to these submissions. Subsequently, other laboratories have studied rigosertib in COVID-19 models but were unable to replicate the results of the initial study. These preclinical studies are continuing in additional laboratories. We do not currently plan to begin clinical trials of rigosertib in patients with COVID-19.

Programs Discontinued During 2020

Through August 2020, our efforts had been primarily focused on our product candidate, rigosertib, for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (“MDS”). Rigosertib has been tested in an intravenous formulation as a single agent for patients with relapsed/refractory higher-risk MDS (“HR-MDS”), and an oral formulation as a single agent in lower risk MDS or in combination with azacitidine for patients with newly diagnosed or refractory HR-MDS.

In December 2015, we enrolled the first patient into our INSPIRE trial, a randomized controlled Phase 3 clinical trial of intravenous rigosertib (“rigosertib IV”) in a population of patients with HR-MDS after failure of hypomethylating agent (“HMA”) therapy. The primary endpoint of INSPIRE was improvement in overall survival. We completed enrollment of the required 360 randomized patients in March 2020, and in July 2020, the required number of survival events was reached.

The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival, comparing IV rigosertib plus best supportive care to physician’s choice (“PC”) plus best supportive care in patients who had progressed on, failed to respond to, or relapsed after previous treatment with an HMA within nine cycles over the course of one year after initiation of HMA treatment. A pre-specified analysis in the very high risk (“VHR-MDS”) patient subgroup was also conducted. Results of INSPIRE demonstrated that in the intent-to-treat analysis patients randomized to IV rigosertib resulted in overall survival of 6.4 months, versus 6.3 months for PC (Hazard ratio 1.13, 95% Confidence interval 0.88-1.46; p=0.33) in the HR-MDS population. Overall survival in the pre-specified VHR-MDS subgroup of patients was identical in the two study arms (5.2 months) (Hazard ratio 1.12, 95% Confidence interval 0.83-1.51; p=0.47). Safety analysis indicates that IV rigosertib was generally well tolerated, with reported adverse events similar to those observed in previous clinical studies with IV rigosertib in MDS. Serious adverse events (“SAEs”) were uncommon, with a similar profile of SAEs in both study arms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

As of now, some of our other programs such as the development of briciclib and recilisib have also been discontinued.

Research and Development

Since commencing operations, we have dedicated a significant portion of our resources to the development of our clinical-stage product candidates, particularly rigosertib. We incurred research and development expenses of $16.9 million and $15.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. We anticipate that a significant portion of our operating expenses will continue to be related to research and development.

Collaboration and License Agreements

HanX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (ON 123300 Agreement)

In December 2017, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with HanX, a company focused on development of novel oncology products, for the further development, registration and commercialization in Greater China of ON 123300. We believe ON 123300 has the potential to overcome limitations of current generation CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and will receive regulatory and commercial milestone payments, as well as royalties on Chinese sales. The key feature of the collaboration is that HanX provides all funding required for Chinese IND enabling studies performed for Chinese health authority IND approval. The Chinese IND was approved in January 2020. We and HanX also intended for these studies to comply with the FDA standards. Accordingly, such studies were used by us for an IND filing with the FDA in November 2020. The FDA Study May Proceed letter was received in December 2020 and first patient in the study is anticipated in the first half of 2021. Drug product for the US study was manufactured in North America and stability data was submitted as part of the IND. We maintain global rights to ON 123300 outside of China.

SymBio Pharmaceuticals Limited

In July 2011, we entered into a license agreement with SymBio, as subsequently amended, granting SymBio an exclusive, royalty-bearing license for the development and commercialization of rigosertib in Japan and Korea. Under the SymBio license agreement, SymBio is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and obtain market approval for rigosertib inside the licensed territory and we have similar obligations outside of the licensed territory. We have also entered into an agreement with SymBio providing for the Company to supply SymBio with development-stage product. Under the SymBio license agreement, we also agreed to supply commercial product to SymBio under specified terms that will be included in a commercial supply agreement to be negotiated prior to the first commercial sale of rigosertib. The supply of development-stage product and the supply of commercial product will be at our cost plus a defined profit margin. We have additionally granted SymBio a right of first negotiation to license or obtain the rights to develop and commercialize compounds having a chemical structure similar to rigosertib in the licensed territory.

Under the terms of the SymBio license agreement, we received an upfront payment of $7,500,000. In addition, we could receive regulatory, development and sales-based milestone payments as well as royalty payments at percentage rates ranging from the mid-teens to 20% based on net sales of rigosertib by SymBio.

Royalties will be payable under the SymBio agreement on a country-by-country basis in the licensed territory, until the later of the expiration of marketing exclusivity in those countries, a specified period of time after first commercial sale of rigosertib in such country, or the expiration of all valid claims of the licensed patents covering rigosertib or the manufacture or use of rigosertib in such country. If no valid claim exists covering the composition of matter of rigosertib or the use of or treatment with rigosertib in a particular country before the expiration of the royalty term, and specified competing products achieve a specified market share percentage in such country, SymBio’s obligation to pay us royalties will continue at a reduced royalty rate until the end of the royalty term. In addition, the applicable royalties payable to us may be reduced if SymBio is required to pay royalties to third-parties for licenses to intellectual property rights necessary to develop, use, manufacture or commercialize rigosertib in the licensed territory. The license agreement with SymBio will remain in effect until the expiration of the royalty term. However, the SymBio

TABLE OF CONTENTS

license agreement may be terminated earlier due to the uncured material breach or bankruptcy of a party, or force majeure. If SymBio terminates the license agreement in these circumstances, its licenses to rigosertib will survive, subject to SymBio’s milestone and royalty obligations, which SymBio may elect to defer and offset against any damages that may be determined to be due from us. In addition, we may terminate the license agreement in the event that SymBio brings a challenge against it in relation to the licensed patents, and SymBio may terminate the license agreement without cause by providing us with written notice a specified period of time in advance of termination. The upfront payment is being recognized ratably through December 2037, the expected term of the agreement. We recognize revenues related to the supply agreement with SymBio when control of the product is transferred to Symbio. Revenues related to the supply agreement were $5,000 and $55,000 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

SymBio has conducted phase 1 trials with IV and oral rigosertib in Japan at their own expense. SymBio also participated in the INSPIRE trial by enrolling patients in Japan. For all rigosertib trials conducted by SymBio, we supply clinical trial supplies and provide other assistance as requested.

Pint International SA

In March 2018, we entered into a License, Development and Commercialization Agreement (the “Pint License Agreement”) with Pint International SA (which, together with its affiliate Pint Pharma GmbH, are collectively referred to as “Pint”). Under the terms of the Pint License Agreement, we granted Pint an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and commercialize any pharmaceutical product (the “Pint Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib in all uses of rigosertib or the Product in humans in Latin America countries (the “Pint Territory,” including Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, British Guiana, Suriname, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela).

Pint agreed to make an upfront equity investment and a subsequent equity investment in our common stock. IIn addition, we could receive regulatory, development and sales-based milestone payments as well as tiered, double digit royalties based on aggregate net sales in the Pint Territory. Pint and the Company have also agreed to enter into a supply agreement providing for Pint purchasing rigosertib and the Pint Licensed Product from the Company within 90 days of the FDA approval of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for the Pint Licensed Product.

Under the terms of the Pint Securities Purchase Agreement, Pint agreed to make an upfront equity investment in the Company at a specified premium to the Company’s share price. Pursuant to the Pint Securities Purchase Agreement, closing of the upfront equity investment occurred on April 4, 2018 and Pint purchased 54,463 shares of common stock for $1,250,000. The total amount of the premium was $319,000 and this amount was allocated to the license.

Pint may terminate the Pint License Agreement in whole (but not in part) at any time upon 45 days’ prior written notice. The Pint License Agreement also contains customary provisions for termination by either party in the event of breach of the Pint License Agreement by the other party, subject to a cure period, or bankruptcy of the other party.

Knight Therapeutics, Inc.

In November 2019, we entered into a Distribution, License and Supply Agreement (the “Knight License Agreement”) with Knight Therapeutics Inc. (“Knight”). Under the terms of the License Agreement, we granted Knight (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and manufacture any product (the “Knight Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib for Canada (and Israel should Knight exercise its option) (the “Knight Territory”) and in human uses (the “Knight Licensed Field”), and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to commercialize the Knight Licensed Product in the Knight Territory and in the Knight Licensed Field.

Knight has also agreed to obtain from us all of Knight’s requirements of the Knight Licensed Products for the Knight Territory, and we have agreed to supply Knight with all of its requirements of the Knight

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Licensed Products. We may, at our discretion, use the services of a contract manufacturer to manufacture and package the Knight Licensed Products.

In addition, we have granted Knight an exclusive right of first refusal with respect to all or any part of the Knight Territory, to store, market, promote, sell, offer for sale and/or distribute any ROFR Products. As used in the Knight License Agreement, “ROFR Products” means all products other than the Knight Licensed Product that are owned, licensed, or controlled by us as of the effective date of the Knight License Agreement and all improvements thereto.

We are eligible to receive clinical, regulatory, and sale-based milestone payments as well as tiered, double-digit royalties based on net sales in the Knight Territory.

The License Agreement is for a term of 15 years from the launch on a country by country basis in the Territory and contains customary provisions for termination by either party in the event of breach of the License Agreement by the other party (subject to a cure period), bankruptcy of the other party, or challenges to the patents by any sublicensee or assignee.

Specialised Therapeutics Asia Pte. Ltd.

In December 2019, we entered into a Distribution, License and Supply Agreement (the “STA License Agreement”) with Specialised Therapeutics Asia Pte. Ltd. (“STA”). Under the terms of the License Agreement, we granted STA (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and manufacture any product (the “STA Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib for Australia and New Zealand (the “STA Territory”) and in human uses (the “STA Licensed Field”), and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to commercialize the STA Licensed Product in the STA Territory and in the STA Licensed Field.

STA has also agreed to obtain from us all of its requirements of the STA Licensed Products for the STA Territory, and we have agreed to supply STA with all of its requirements of the STA Licensed Products. We may, at our discretion, use the services of a contract manufacturer to manufacture and package the STA Licensed Products.

We are eligible to receive clinical, regulatory, and sale-based milestone payments as well as tiered, double-digit royalties based on net sales in the STA Territory.

The STA License Agreement is for a term of 15 years from the launch on a country by country basis in the STA Territory and contains customary provisions for termination by either party in the event of breach of the STA License Agreement by the other party (subject to a cure period), bankruptcy of the other party, or challenges to the patents by any sublicensee or assignee.

HanX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (terminated rigosertib agreement)

In May 2019, we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement (the “HanX rigosertib License Agreement”) with HanX . Under the terms of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement, we granted HanX an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and commercialize any pharmaceutical product (the “HanX Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib in all uses of rigosertib or the HanX Licensed Product in humans therapeutics uses in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan (the “HanX Territory”). In connection with the HanX rigosertib License Agreement, we also entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with each of HanX and Abundant New Investments Ltd. (“Abundant”), an affiliate of HanX (each, a “Securities Purchase Agreement” and together, the “HanX Securities Purchase Agreements”).

HanX did not fulfill its obligations under the HanX rigosertib License Agreement and effective January 16, 2020, in accordance with the terms of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement, the HanX License Agreement was deemed to be void ab initio. Upon this termination, the rights to HanX Licensed Product in the HanX Territory reverted to us in accordance with the terms of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition, the HanX Securities Purchase Agreements terminated automatically effective January 16, 2020 upon the termination of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement in accordance with the HanX Securities Purchase Agreements.

Intellectual Property

Patents and Proprietary Rights

Our intellectual property is derived through our internal research, licensing agreements with Temple University, or Temple, and licensing research agreements with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, or Mount Sinai.

License Agreement with Temple University

In January 1999, we entered into a license agreement with Temple as subsequently amended, to obtain an exclusive, world-wide license to certain Temple patents and technical information to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale and import several classes of novel compounds.

Under the terms of the license agreement, we paid Temple a non-refundable up-front payment, and are required to pay annual license maintenance fees, as well as a low single-digit percentage of net sales as a royalty. In addition, we agreed to pay Temple 25% of any consideration received from any sublicensee of the licensed Temple patents and technical information, which does not include any royalties on sales, funds received for research and development or proceeds from any equity or debt investment.

The license agreement with Temple can be terminated by mutual agreement or due to the material breach or bankruptcy of either party. We may terminate the license agreement for any reason by giving Temple prior written notice.

Research Agreement with Mount Sinai School of Medicine

In May 2010, we entered into a research agreement with Mount Sinai. This agreement is described in more detail under the caption “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions — Research Agreement.”

ON123300 Patents

As of March 2021, we owned or exclusively licensed issued patents and pending patent applications covering composition of matter, formulation and various indications for method-of-use for ON123300 filed worldwide, including in the United States. The U.S. composition-of-matter patent for ON123300 expires in 2031. Patent term extensions may be available, depending on various provisions in the law.

Rigosertib Patents

As of March 2021, we owned or exclusively licensed issued patents and pending patent applications covering composition-of-matter, process, formulation and various indications for method-of-use for rigosertib filed worldwide, including in the United States. The U.S. composition-of-matter patent for rigosertib, which we in-licensed pursuant to the license agreement with Temple, currently expires in 2026. The U.S. method of treatment patent for rigosertib, which we also in-licensed from Temple, expires in 2025. A patent covering the use of rigosertib in combination with anticancer agents including azacitidine is issued and will expire in 2028. The novel formulation patent for rigosertib expires in 2037. Patent term extensions may be available, depending on various provisions in the law.

General Considerations

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify a proprietary position for our product candidates will depend upon our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims once granted.

Our commercial success will depend in part upon not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our

TABLE OF CONTENTS

development or commercial strategies, or our product candidates or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. If a third party commences a patent infringement action against us, or our collaborators, it could consume significant financial and management resources, regardless of the merit of the claims or the outcome of the litigation.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for additional patent term extension, which provides patent term restoration to account for the patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is determined based upon the time from the IND effective date to the NDA submission date, and the time from NDA submission date and the eventual application approval, as further described below. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products.

Furthermore, we may be able to obtain extension of patent term by adjustment of the said term under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 154 if the issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For example, we have received adjustments of 1,139 days extension to the patent term for the rigosertib composition of matter patent (US 7,598,232), 1,155 days extension for the patent covering the process for making rigosertib (US 8,143,453) and 751 days extension for rigosertib formulation patent (US 8,063,109) under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §154.

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

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from both large and small pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. There are a number of pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may compete with our products. Many of these companies are multinational pharmaceutical or biotechnology organizations, which are pursuing the development of, or are currently marketing, pharmaceuticals that target the key oncology indications or cellular pathways on which we are focused.

It is probable that the increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer will lead to many more companies seeking to develop products and therapies for the treatment of unmet needs in oncology. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources than we have. Many of our competitors also have a significant advantage with respect to experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. We anticipate intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and as more advanced technologies become available. Our success will be based in part on our ability to identify, develop and manage a portfolio of drugs that are safer and more effective than competing products in the treatment of cancer patients.

There are several ongoing clinical trials aimed at expanding the use of approved chemotherapeutic and immunomodulatory agents in metastatic breast cancer and other the diseases we are studying, as well as

TABLE OF CONTENTS

several new clinical programs testing novel technologies. Companies competing in the metastatic breast cancer space include large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer (palbociclib), Novartis (ribociclib) and Eli Lilly (abemacicilib).

Manufacturing

Our product candidates are synthetic small molecules. Manufacturing activities must comply with FDA current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations. We conduct our manufacturing activities under individual purchase orders with third-party contract manufacturers (“CMOs”). We have quality agreements in place with our key CMOs. We have also established an internal quality management organization, which audits and qualifies CMOs in the United States and abroad.

We believe that the manufacturing processes for the active pharmaceutical ingredient and finished drug products for our products are being developed to adequately support future development and commercial demands. If manufacturing challenges occur, they are thoroughly reviewed and, as may be required, reported to health authorities to determine whether the product can be used for clinical trials.

The FDA regulates and inspects equipment, facilities and processes used in manufacturing pharmaceutical products prior to approval. If we or CMOs fail to comply with applicable cGMP requirements and conditions of product approval, the FDA may seek sanctions, including fines, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, refusal to approve applications, seizure or recall of products and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party CMOs, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party CMOs will consistently comply with cGMP and other applicable FDA regulatory requirements.

Commercial Operations

We do not currently have an organization for the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. We may rely on licensing and co-promotion agreements with strategic partners for the commercialization of our products in the United States and other territories. If we choose to build a commercial infrastructure to support marketing in the United States, such commercial infrastructure could be expected to include a targeted, oncology sales force supported by sales management, internal sales support, an internal marketing group and distribution support. To develop the appropriate commercial infrastructure internally, we would have to invest significant financial and management resources.

Government Regulation

As a pharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDC Act, and its implementing regulations set forth, among other things, requirements for the research, testing, development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval, labeling, storage, record keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, advertising, marketing, and promotion of our products. FDA also has issued a growing body of guidance documents that provide the agency’s interpretation of regulatory requirements, including a number of guidance documents to assist companies navigating COVID-19, product development, and manufacturing.

Although the discussion below focuses on regulation in the United States, we anticipate seeking approval for, and marketing of, our products in other countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of approval and regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way through the EMA, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects and enforcement is generally through EU member state authorities. The process of obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and may not be successful. In addition, approval in the United States does not automatically result in approval in the European Union or elsewhere.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

United States Government Regulation

The FDA is the main regulatory body that controls pharmaceuticals in the United States, and its regulatory authority is based in the FDC Act. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes. A failure to comply explicitly with any requirements during the product development, approval, or post-approval periods, may lead to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an institutional review board, or IRB, or Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of a hold on clinical trials, refusal to approve pending marketing applications or supplements, withdrawal of approval, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, product recalls, product seizures or detention, prohibition on importing or exporting, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, adverse publicity, disgorgement, restitution, FDA debarment, debarment from government contracting or refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from Federal healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, consent decrees, or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a new drug may be marketed in the United States generally include:

•

Completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s GLP regulations;

•

Submission to the FDA of an IND to support human clinical testing;

•

Approval by an IRB at each clinical site or centrally before each trial may be initiated;

•

Performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with federal regulations and with current good clinical practices, or GCPs, to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product for each targeted indication;

•

Submission of a NDA to the FDA;

•

Satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

•

Satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facilities at which the investigational product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate, as well as satisfactory completion of FDA inspections of selected clinical trial sites to ensure that clinical trials were conducted in accordance with GCPs; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical and Clinical Trials

The testing and approval process of product candidates requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease. Product development typically begins with preclinical studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, and product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Such studies must generally be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s GLPs.

Prior to commencing the first clinical trial with a product candidate, an IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests and preclinical literature, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, and proposed clinical study protocols among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. This authorization is required before interstate shipping and administration of any new drug product to humans that is not the subject of an approved NDA. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to patients under the supervision of qualified investigators following GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols that detail the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The informed written consent of each participating subject is required. The clinical investigation of an investigational drug is generally divided into three phases. Although the phases are usually conducted sequentially, they may overlap or be combined. The three phases of an investigation are as follows:

•

Phase 1. Phase 1 includes the initial introduction of an investigational drug into humans. Phase 1 clinical trials may be conducted in patients with the target disease or condition or healthy volunteers. These studies are designed to evaluate the safety, metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic actions of the investigational drug in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. During Phase 1 clinical trials, sufficient information about the investigational product’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of Phase 2 clinical trials. The total number of participants included in Phase 1 clinical trials varies, but is generally in the range of 20 to 80.

•

Phase 2. Phase 2 includes the controlled clinical trials conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the investigational product for a particular indication(s) in patients with the disease or condition under study, to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage, and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks associated with the drug. Phase 2 clinical trials are typically well-controlled, closely monitored, and conducted in a limited patient population, usually involving no more than several hundred participants.

•

Phase 3. Phase 3 clinical trials are controlled clinical trials conducted in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. They are performed after preliminary evidence suggesting effectiveness of the investigational product has been obtained, and are intended to further evaluate dosage, clinical effectiveness and safety, to establish the overall benefit-risk relationship of the product, and to provide an adequate basis for product approval. Phase 3 clinical trials usually involve several hundred to several thousand participants. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug.

Additional kinds of data may also help support an NDA, such as patient experience data and real world evidence. Real world evidence may be used to assist in clinical trial design or support an NDA for already approved products.

The decision to terminate development of an investigational drug product may be made by either a health authority body, such as the FDA or IRB/independent ethics committees (“IECs”), or by a company for various reasons. An IRB approves the initiation of a clinical trial and supervises the conduct of the trial to ensure that the risks to human subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits and that there are adequate human subject protections in place. The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. In some cases, clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor. This group provides guidance on whether or not a trial may or should move forward at designated check points. These decisions are based on the limited access to data from the ongoing trial. The suspension or termination of development can occur during any phase of clinical trials if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, if the product candidate does not show sufficient evidence of efficacy, if the development program does not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, or due to changing sponsor business objectives.

In addition, there are various reporting requirements that clinical trial sponsors and investigators must comply with during the course of a clinical trial. For instance, there are requirements for the registration of ongoing clinical trials of drugs on public registries and the disclosure of certain information pertaining to the trials as well as clinical trial results after completion. Sponsors must also make annual reports to FDA concerning the progress of their clinical trial programs as well as more frequent reports for certain serious adverse events. Sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments to FDA and the applicable IRBs. IRBs must also receive information concerning unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects. Investigators must further provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA. Moreover, under the 21st Century Cures Act, manufacturers or distributors of investigational drugs for the diagnosis, monitoring,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must have a publicly available policy concerning expanded access to investigational drugs.

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

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

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, detailed investigational drug product information is submitted to the FDA in the form of a NDA to request market approval for the product in specified indications.

New Drug Applications

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the proposed indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

In most cases, the NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee; there may be some instances in which the user fee is waived. The FDA will initially review the NDA for completeness before it accepts the NDA for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. For new molecular entities, or NMEs, FDA has the goal of completing its review within ten months of the application’s acceptance for filing. This, however, is just a goal, and the review time may take longer. For instance, the FDA can extend this review by three months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. For drugs for which no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of active ingredients) has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must refer the drug to an advisory committee or provide in an action letter, a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the product candidate to an advisory committee. Product candidates may also be referred to advisory committees for other reasons. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product

TABLE OF CONTENTS

within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application, including additional clinical trials. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either: resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter; withdraw the application; or request an opportunity for a hearing. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

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

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

Advertising and Promotion

The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses — that is, uses not approved by the FDA and therefore not described in the drug’s labeling — because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Broadly speaking, a manufacturer may not promote a drug for off-label use, but may engage in non-promotional, balanced communication regarding off-label use under specified conditions. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

Post-Approval Regulations

After regulatory approval of a drug is obtained, a company is required to comply with a number of post-approval requirements. For example, as a condition of approval of an NDA, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s

TABLE OF CONTENTS

safety and effectiveness after commercialization. Regulatory approval of oncology products often requires that patients in clinical trials be followed for long periods to determine the overall survival benefit of the drug. In addition, as a holder of an approved NDA, a company would be required to report adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, to provide updated safety and efficacy information, and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for any of its products. Further, under the Drug Quality and Security Act, manufacturers have obligations concerning the tracking and tracing of drug products, as well as the investigation and reporting of suspect and illegitimate products. Also, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMP after approval to assure and preserve the long term stability of the drug product. Manufacturing facilities must be registered with FDA and marketed drug products must be listed. Recently, the information that must be submitted to FDA regarding manufactured products was expanded through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES, Act to include the volume of drugs produced during the prior year. Sponsors are also subject to annual program fees, though there may be some exemptions. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP, which imposes extensive procedural and substantive record keeping requirements. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon a company and any third-party manufacturers that a company may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our product candidates. Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action that could delay or prohibit further marketing.

Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures, such as risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and phase 4 studies. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development or result in additional post-approval requirements.

After a product is approved for commercial sale, in addition to marketing and promotion restrictions, manufacturers are subject to federal and state laws and regulations requiring them to report certain pricing data, transactions with medical professionals, and similar information. Manufacturers participating in federal health care programs are also required to provide statutorily mandated discounts and rebates.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDC Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product or method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA or 505(b)(2) application. In an effort to clarify which patents must be listed in the Orange Book, in January 2021, Congress passed the Orange Book Transparency Act of 2020, which largely codifies FDA’s existing practices into the FDCA.

An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug. 505(b)(2) applications provide for marketing of a drug product that may have the same active ingredients as the listed drug and contain the same full safety and effectiveness data as an NDA, but at least some of the information comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant. 505(b)(2) applicants may rely on published literature or FDA’s prior finding of safety and effectiveness for an NDA approved drug product. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product referenced in the marketing application in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge or carve out the listed patents, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application approval will not be made effective until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from making an approval of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application effective until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant, or such shorter or longer period as may be determined by a court.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity has expired.

Recently, Congress, the Administration, and administrative agencies have taken certain measures to increase drug competition and thus, decrease drug prices. By example, in 2019 FDA introduced a proposed rule and in 2020 FDA issued a final guidance to facilitate drug importation. Congress also passed a bill requiring sponsors of NDA approved products to provide sufficient quantities of drug product on commercially reasonable market-based terms to entities developing generic and similar drug products. This bill also included provisions on shared and individual REMS for generic drug products.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot receive any ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application for the same active moiety. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, may be associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug or a 505(b)(2) application that includes the change, if the applicant conducted clinical trials essential to the approval of the application, which are not bioavailability or bioequivalence studies. Such exclusivity in the EU under a broadly equivalent regime is ten years.

An ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five year patent extension of a single unexpired patent, that has not previously been extended. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase — the time between IND application and NDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

submission — and all of the review phase — the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of approval. Similar extension rules apply in the EU.

Emergency Use Authorizations

While, in most cases, a therapeutic must be approved by FDA pursuant to an NDA, an ANDA, or a BLA, before the product may be sold, when there is a public health emergency involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, including infectious diseases like COVID-19, new therapeutics may be distributed pursuant to an Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA. Under an EUA, FDA may authorize the emergency use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved product for certain emergency circumstances to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, and after the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has issued a declaration of emergency or threat justifying emergency use. EUAs are intended to address serious or life threatening diseases or conditions caused by a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent, including emerging infectious disease threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To receive an EUA, the product sponsor must demonstrate that the product “may be effective” in the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of an applicable disease or condition. Additionally FDA must determine that the product’s known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Further there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative product for the indication. Potential alternative products may be unavailable if there are insufficient supplies to meet the emergency need. FDA may establish additional conditions on an EUA that are necessary to protect public health, including conditions related to information that must be disseminated to health care providers and patients, the monitoring and reporting of adverse events, and record keeping. Conditions may also relate to how a product is distributed and administered and how a product is advertised. Importantly, EUAs are not full marketing approvals. Rather, EUAs are only effective for the duration of the applicable EUA declaration. Full approval of the product under applicable standards established under the FDCA would be necessary to continue to distribute the product absent an EUA. EUAs may also be revised or revoked by FDA at any time. To date and with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, while a number of medical devices have received EUAs, including in vitro diagnostic products, personal protective equipment, and ventilators, significantly fewer therapeutics have received EUAs.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Europe and Other International Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Some countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, or CTA, much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee (IEC), much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. When the Clinical Trials Regulation (EC) 536/2014 comes into force, it will be possible to make a single application for a cross-border trial within the EU through an EU clinical trial portal. In the light of the pending departure of the United Kingdom (“UK”) from the EU, however, it is unlikely that trials in the

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UK will be approved through the portal and a separate application will need to be made to the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Additionally, in the EU there is an increasing move to transparency of trial summary reports and the above Clinical Trial Regulation will include a publicly accessible database of data and information submitted in accordance with this regulation. Companies’ submitting data will need to justify why it should be kept confidential.

To obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a new drug under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The MAA is similar to the NDA, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements.

For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Expanded Access

Under certain circumstances, regulators may permit unapproved drugs to be used by patients outside of clinical trials. In the U.S., with FDA approval, manufacturers may provide investigational drugs to patients with serious or immediately life threatening diseases for which there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapies. To qualify for U.S. expanded access, the potential benefit must justify the potential risks and the potential risks must not be unreasonable. Providing the investigational drug must also not interfere with product development. There are additional qualifying criteria depending on the number of patients in the expanded access program, and the expanded access sponsor and investigator must comply with FDA’s regulations. U.S. law also permits treatment access to certain investigational drugs under the federal Right to Try law, which permits manufacturers to provide investigational drugs to patients with a life-threatening disease or condition, who have exhausted all approved treatment options, who cannot participate in a clinical trial of the drug, and who provides informed consent. Certain reports must be submitted to FDA under the federal Right to Try. There are also state level Right to Try statutes.

In the European Union, early access programs are authorized by EU legislation and, through national laws, EU member states have implemented regulatory requirements related to these programs. National competent authorities may authorize early access program use. In both the EU and U.S. unapproved drug products may not be promoted or marketed.

Compliance

During all phases of development (pre- and post-marketing), failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an institutional review board, or IRB, of a hold on clinical trials, refusal to approve pending marketing applications or supplements, withdrawal of approval, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, product recalls, product seizures or detention, prohibition on importing or exporting, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, adverse publicity, disgorgement, restitution, FDA debarment, debarment from government contracting or refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from Federal healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, consent decrees, or criminal prosecution. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Other Special Regulatory Procedures

Orphan Drug Designation

The FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or, if the disease or condition affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug would be recovered from sales in the United States. Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan designation if there is a product

TABLE OF CONTENTS

already approved by the FDA that is intended for the same indication and that is considered by the FDA to be the same as the already approved product. This hypothesis must be demonstrated to obtain orphan exclusivity. In the European Union, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, grants Orphan Drug Designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life- threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug.

In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives, such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs for certain kinds of studies, tax credits for certain research and user fee waivers under certain circumstances. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress expanded the potential opportunities for grant funding to include additional kinds of studies. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, however, reduced the available tax credits for orphan products. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to seven years of market exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application for the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition.

In the European Union, Orphan Drug Designation also entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following drug approval. This period may be reduced to six years if the Orphan Drug Designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the holder of the marketing authorisation for the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the medicinal product,. As with the FDA, orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the EMA from approving a second medicinal product where such the second medicinal product, although similar to the orphan medicinal product already authorised, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submission of an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

Priority Review (United States), Accelerated Review (European Union) and other Expedited Programs

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

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if the product will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy, safety, or public health factors. If Fast Track designation is obtained, drug sponsors may be eligible for more frequent development meetings and correspondence with the FDA. In addition, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information.

Based on results of one or more Phase 3 clinical trials submitted in an NDA, upon the request of an applicant, a priority review designation may be granted to a product by the FDA, which sets the target date for FDA action on the application at six months from FDA filing, or eight months from the sponsor’s

TABLE OF CONTENTS

submission. Priority review is given to drugs intended to treat serious conditions and which, if approved would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of the serious condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the standard FDA review period is ten months from FDA filing, or 12 months from sponsor submission. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

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

In addition, products for treating serious or life threatening conditions and that provide a meaningful advantage over available therapies may be eligible for accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product 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, FDA will 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 endpoints. The drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures if such studies do not verify the product’s clinical benefit or other evidence shows a lack of safety or efficacy. Promotional materials for products approved via the accelerated approval pathway must be submitted to FDA prior to initial distribution. Such products may also be subject to distribution or use restrictions, if FDA determines that restrictions are needed to assure safe use. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Under the Centralized Procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products of Human Use, or CHMP). On average, an approval is provided by the European Commission after approximately 15 months. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease (e.g., heavy disabling or life-threatening diseases) to be treated; the absence or insufficiency of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach; and anticipation of high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days. There is also a conditional marketing authorization which allows for the early approval of a medicine on the basis of less complete clinical data than normally required, if the medicine addresses an unmet medical need and targets a seriously debilitating or life-threatening disease, a rare disease or is intended for use in emergency situations in response to a public health threat. The benefit to public health must outweigh the risk due to the limited availability of clinical data at the time of marketing authorization.

The EMA has recently been conducting a pilot on ‘adaptive pathways’ — an iterative process building on existing regulatory processes involving gathering evidence through real-life use to supplement clinical trial data.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs or certain supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for

TABLE OF CONTENTS

which the drug is safe and effective. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Also, under the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, sponsors submitting applications for product candidates intended for the treatment of adult cancer which are directed at molecular targets that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of pediatric cancer must submit, with the application, reports from molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigations designed to yield clinically meaningful pediatric study data, using appropriate formulations, to inform potential pediatric labeling. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data under PREA and this requirement.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity — Orange Book listed patent or non-patent exclusivity — for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the required timeframe. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory exclusivity period. Moreover, pediatric exclusivity attaches to all formulations, dosage forms, and indications for products with existing marketing exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent life that contain the same active moiety as that which was studied. Applications under the BPCA for labeling changes receive priority review designation, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

In the European Union all applications for marketing authorization for new medicines have to include the results of studies as described in an agreed pediatric investigation plan, unless the medicine receives a deferral or waiver. Medicines authorized across the EU with the results of studies from a pediatric investigation plan included in the product information are eligible for an extension of their supplementary protection certificate by six months. This is the case even when the studies’ results are negative. For orphan medicines, the incentive is an additional two years of market exclusivity.

Healthcare Reform

Enacted in 2010, the President of the United States signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which we refer to collectively as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act is a sweeping law intended to, by broadening access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance enhancing remedies against fraud and abuse, adding new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose imposing new taxes and fees on the health industry, and impose imposing additional health policy reforms intended to reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending.

Among the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

•

an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in some government healthcare programs;

•

an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, retroactive to January 1, 2010, to 23% and 13% of the average manufacturer price for most branded and generic drugs, respectively;

•

expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;

•

a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

•

extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

•

expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;

•

expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;

•

new requirements to report annually specified financial arrangements with physicians and teaching hospitals, as defined in the Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations, including reporting any “payments or transfers of value” made or distributed to prescribers, teaching hospitals, and other healthcare providers and reporting any ownership and investment interests held by physicians and other healthcare providers and their immediate family members and applicable group purchasing organizations during the preceding calendar year, with data collection required beginning August 1, 2013 and reporting to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required by March 31, 2014 and by the 90th day of each subsequent calendar year;

•

a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians;

•

a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and

•

a mandatory nondeductible payment for employers with 50 or more full time employees (or equivalents) who fail to provide certain minimum health insurance coverage for such employees and their dependents, beginning in 2015 (pursuant to relief enacted by the Treasury Department).

There have also been changes to Medicare and Medicaid regulations applicable to pharmaceutical manufacturers. For example, in 2016, CMS finalized a comprehensive rule implementing Affordable Care Act changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

In addition, other legislative changes have been adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, under the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Such new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective January 1, 2019, increased manufacturer liability for Medicare Part D covered prescriptions in the period of the coverage gap from 50 percent to 70 percent. The Affordable Care Act was amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to repeal the individual penalty for not purchasing health insurance, and it may be further repealed and replaced by Congress. Changes in the law may result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, or may require increased manufacturer rebates, and could seriously harm our business.

Pricing, Coverage and Reimbursement

The government is increasingly focused on measures to contain program costs for prescription drugs. Specifically, there have been recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, penalize companies that do not agree to cap prices paid for certain drugs, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. On November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nation payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capita Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (GDP-adjusted) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Various state health care programs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

similarly require reporting of drug pricing information that is used as the basis for their reimbursement of pharmacies and other health care providers and the negotiation of supplemental rebates. States, such as California, have also enacted transparency laws that require manufacturers to report price increases and related information, and cap price increases, or require negotiation of supplemental rebates for new drugs entering the market at price points determined to be high. Refusal to negotiate supplemental rebates can negatively affect market access and provider reimbursement. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. In addition, it is possible that there will be further legislation or regulation that could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In the US, many independent third-party payers, as well as the Medicare and state Medicaid programs, reimburse buyers of pharmaceutical products. Medicare is the federal program that provides health care benefits to senior citizens and certain disabled and chronically ill persons. Medicaid is the federal program administered by the states to provide health care benefits to certain indigent persons. In return for including our pharmaceutical commercial products in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, we may need to agree to calculate and report certain price points to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and pay a rebate to state Medicaid agencies that provide reimbursement for those products in an outpatient setting. We will also have to agree to sell our commercial products under contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, and the Indian Health Service, as well as certain hospitals, community health centers, clinics, and other providers that are designated as 340B covered entities (entities designated by federal programs statute to receive mandatory drug discounts under the 340B program drugs at discounted prices) at prices that are significantly below the price we may charge to commercial pharmaceutical distributors. These programs and contracts are highly regulated and may impose restrictions on our business, including penalties for price increases that exceed the rate of inflation. These and any additional healthcare reform measures could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures. Failure to comply with these regulations and restrictions could result in a loss of our ability to continue selling our drugs to the federal government or receiving reimbursement for our drugs once approved.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the European Community, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for dug products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements of our products.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some business arrangements from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. With respect to the safe harbors, HHS recently promulgated a regulation that is effective in two phases. First, the regulation excludes from the definition of “remuneration” limited categories of (a) PBM rebates or other reductions in price to a plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

sponsor under Medicare Part D or a Medicaid Managed Care Organization plan reflected in point-of sale reductions in price and (b) PBM service fees. Second, effective January 1, 2023, the regulation expressly provides that rebates to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D either directly to the plan sponsor under Medicare Part D, or indirectly through a pharmacy benefit manager will not be protected under the anti-kickback discount safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from federal Anti-Kickback Statute liability. The reach of the Anti-Kickback Statute was broadened by the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. 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 Affordable Care Act 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 (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes penalties against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The civil False Claims Act authorizes imposition of treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim submitted, which, for pharmaceutical products, have frequently resulted in multi-million dollar penalties.. Claims under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the government or private parties on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions, which may proceed even if the government does not join as a party.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. The Affordable Care Act amended the intent requirement of certain of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation. Further, the government may prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

The Affordable Care Act further created new federal requirements for reporting, by applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, of information related to payments and other transfers of value made to or at the request of covered recipients, such as, but not limited to, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family. Payments made to physicians and certain research institutions for clinical trials are included within the ambit of this law.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH Act, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information, known as protected health information. Among other things, the HITECH Act makes HIPAA’s security and certain privacy standards directly applicable to “business associates” — persons or organizations, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains, or transmits protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. The HITECH Act also strengthened the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and individuals, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, govern the privacy and security of health information in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not be preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. In addition, more onerous foreign data privacy provisions may apply. For instance, the EU General Data Protection Regulation imposes stricter rules on the processing of personal data than apply in the USA and its provisions exclude the export of data relating to identifiable individuals to most countries, including the US, unless certain safeguards are in place.

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to additional regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, other divisions of HHS (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the DOJ and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. If a drug product is reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid, pricing and rebate programs must comply with, as applicable, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 as well as the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, or the OBRA, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, each as amended. Among other things, the OBRA requires drug manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics used to determine rebates paid on prescription drugs to state Medicaid programs. Under the Veterans Health Care Act, or VHCA, drug companies are required to offer “covered drugs” (including all drugs approved under an NDA) at a reduced price, calculated based on a manufacturer’s required price calculations, to four federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and DoD, the Public Health Service and some private Public Health Service designated entities in order to participate in other federal funding programs including Medicaid. Legislation subsequent to the VHCA have required that these discounted prices also be offered for specified DoD purchases for its TRICARE program via a rebate system. Participation under the VHCA requires submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, as well as the entry into government procurement contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in some states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/ or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing specified physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit other specified sales and marketing practices. Additionally, some states have enacted laws that cap increases in prices charged for drugs in that state. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

In Europe, most countries have laws or (more commonly) codes of practice which broadly emulate US ‘sunshine laws’ and require companies to maintain and publish a record of transfers of value to healthcare professionals. These are in addition to national anti-corruption laws similar to the FCPA — for instance the UK Bribery Act 2010 which has a wider scope than the FCPA in many respects including in that it covers relevant decision makers in both the private and public sectors and applies both domestically and internationally.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, we had 12 employees, 11 of which were full-time employees.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in December 1998. Our principal executive offices are located at 375 Pheasant Run, Newtown, PA 18940 and our telephone number is (267) 759-3680. Our website address is www.onconova.com. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risk factors together with the other information contained in this Annual Report, including our financial statements and the related notes appearing in this report. We cannot assure you that any of the events discussed in the risk factors below will not occur. If any of the following risks actually occur, they may materially harm our business and our financial condition and results of operations. In this event, the market price of our securities could decline and your investment could be lost. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such risks. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our product development efforts may not be successful.

The focus of our development efforts is currently on ON 123300 and oral rigosertib. Although, we believe that there are opportunities for us to develop ON 123300, our novel multi kinase inhibitor targeting CDK4/6 as well as other tyrosine kinases, in indications such as metastatic breast cancer, mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, and oral rigosertib in RAS mutated cancers, clinical drug development is expensive, can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Even if our clinical development programs are successful, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product. There can be no assurance that our focus on ON 123300 and oral rigosertib will be successful, and that we will be able to successfully develop a product candidate or, even if we do, that we will be able to successfully commercialize such candidate.

Our future success is dependent primarily on the regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate for a target indication, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence gathered in preclinical and well-controlled clinical studies and, with respect to approval in the United States, to the satisfaction of the FDA, that the product candidate is safe and effective for use for that target indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding or generate sufficient revenue to continue the development of our product candidates.

The results of preclinical testing or earlier clinical studies are not necessarily predictive of future results. Any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later-stage clinical trials or receive regulatory approval.

Encouraging results in preclinical testing and earlier clinical studies does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug. If later-stage clinical trials do not produce favorable results, our ability to achieve regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be adversely impacted.

We recently changed the focus of our product development efforts and may not be successful in our revised strategy.

We plan to continue to focus on the other programs in our pipeline, including oral rigosertib in KRAS mutated cancers and our novel multi kinase inhibitor targeting CDK4/6, ON 123300. We are also reviewing potential in-licensing opportunities. This change in the strategic focus of our product development efforts may not be successful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin or enroll subjects on time, need to be redesigned or be completed on schedule, if at all. Regulatory authorities may also find that our development programs do not support product approval. There can be no assurance that the FDA, an IRB, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority will permit our clinical trials to commence and will not put clinical trials of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. Study results may also cause us to discontinue trials. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated and development programs may not be successful for a variety of reasons, including:

•

delay or failure in reaching identifying, contracting with, and retaining contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites;

•

delay or failure in recruiting and enrolling suitable subjects to participate in a trial and/or retaining subjects;

•

failure to follow the study procedures or applicable regulatory requirements;

•

negative or ambiguous study results;

•

manufacturing or product quality issues;

•

the need to conduct additional development work, including clinical trials;

•

changes in governmental laws, regulations, or policies, such as due to the change in the U.S. administration, or administrative actions; and

•

regulatory authority disagreements regarding the design or implementation of our clinical trials.

If we experience delays in the completion or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

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

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority.

As a result of undesirable side effects or safety or toxicity issues that we may experience in our clinical trials, we may not receive approval to market any product candidates, which could prevent us from ever generating revenues or achieving profitability. Results of our trials could reveal an unacceptably high severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. These side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. They could also result in restrictive labeling for any approved products.

Failure to follow FDA’s applicable regulatory requirements may result in enforcement action.

If we or our third party contractors are not able to follow FDA’s regulatory requirements, we or they may face enforcement actions that may materially harm our business, including, but not limited to:

•

warning letters or untitled letters or otherwise unacceptable inspectional findings;

•

injunctions, penalties, fines, or debarment;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

•

suspension any ongoing clinical studies, clinical holds, or regulatory authority refusal to approve marketing applications;

•

restrictions on operations, product seizure or detention, refusal to permit the import or export of products, or product recalls; or

•

adverse publicity.

Changes in product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. During the course of a development program, sponsors may also change the contract manufacturers used to produce the product candidates. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification, or FDA approval. This could delay completion of clinical trials; require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or studies, or the repetition of one or more clinical trials; increase clinical trial costs; delay approval of our product candidates; and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Healthcare legislation, including potentially unfavorable pricing regulations or other healthcare reform initiatives, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

The regulations that govern, among other things, marketing approvals, coverage, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country and our ability to commercialize any products will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products is available. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, limit coverage and reimbursement or restrict the prices we may charge including through payments of increased manufacturer rebates, and affect our ability to successfully sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Furthermore, in the United States private payors often follow Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. These and any additional healthcare reform measures in the United States, the European Union and other potentially significant markets could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures.

States, in the U.S., have also enacted laws requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, cap price increases, negotiate or pay increased supplemental rebates and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing specified physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit other specified sales and marketing practices.

Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. In the United States, Medicaid and other federal programs impose penalties for increasing prices over the rate of inflation, which can result in penny prices. Federal legislative proposals would create inflation penalties under certain federal government pricing programs that currently do not impose these penalties and alter the caps on the magnitude of inflation penalties paid under these programs. Some states such as California are also regulating price increases. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We cannot be sure that timely coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of coverage and reimbursement will be.

In the event that any of our partners fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may not accept the data that they generate in furtherance of our marketing applications, and they or us could be subject to enforcement action. In addition, any decision by our partners to terminate these agreements could also damage our reputation and negatively impact our ability to obtain financing from other sources.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with FDA’s laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct for our directors, officers and employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

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

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. For example, large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly successfully market commercialized CDK 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib and have done so for a number of years. More recently, G1 Therapeutics secured FDA approval of the CDK 4/6 triaciclib.

TRAW US Equity

TRAW · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

TRAW US Equity☆

TRAW · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

TRAW US Equity