vtgn20220331_10k.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

For the fiscal year ended: March 31, 2022

Commission file number: 001-37761

VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

343 Allerton Avenue

South San Francisco, California94080

(650)577-3600

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive office)

Securities registered pursuant to Section12(b) of the Act

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

Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share VTGN The Nasdaq Capital Market

Securities registered pursuant to Section12(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 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 and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates of the registrant on September 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s second fiscal quarter, was: $536,809,889.

As of June 22, 2022, there were 206,640,955 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item No. Page No.

PART I

1. Business 5

1A. Risk Factors 33

1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 66

2. Properties 66

3. Legal Proceedings 66

4. Mine Safety Disclosures 66

PART II

6. Selected Financial Data 67

7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 82

8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 82

9A. Controls and Procedures 120

9B. Other Information 121

PART III

10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 122

11. Executive Compensation 128

14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 144

PART IV

15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 146

EXHIBIT INDEX 146

iii

Forward-Looking Statements

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

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

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

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

PARTI

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

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a late clinical-stage, central nervous system (CNS)-focused biopharmaceutical company striving to transform the treatment landscape for individuals living with anxiety, depression and other CNS disorders. We are advancing development of therapeutics with the potential to be faster-acting, and with fewer side effects and safety concerns, than those that are currently available. Our clinical-stage candidates are targeting multiple forms of anxiety and depression. They primarily belong to a new class of drugs known as pherines, which are odorless, neuroactive steroids that bind to distinct receptors on chemosensory neurons in the nasal passages and can impact the limbic amygdala without systemic uptake or direct activity on CNS neurons in the brain. Our lead candidate, PH94B, is a nasally administered spray currently in multiple Phase 3 trials in the U.S., with results from two of such Phase 3 studies anticipated in 2022. Should ongoing Phase 3 studies be successful, PH94B has the potential to be the first FDA-approved, fast-acting, acute treatment of anxiety for adults with social anxiety disorder. VistaGen is passionate about transforming mental health care and redefining what is possible for patients and health care providers in the treatment of anxiety and depression – One Mind at a Time.

PH94B is being developed for multiple anxiety disorders. Our PALISADE Phase 3 Program for PH94B is underway, anchored by PALISADE-1 and PALISADE-2, each a U.S., multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of PH94B for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with social anxiety disorder (SAD). In addition, our PALISADE Phase 3 Program includes a long-term safety study which is underway in the U.S., and two additional planned clinical studies that we believe are required to support a potential U.S. New Drug Application (NDA) for PH94B in SAD based on our prior discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), should our PALISADE Phase 3 Program be successful overall. In addition, our exploratory Phase 2A clinical program for PH94B, which is designed to assess the therapeutic potential of PH94B in anxiety disorders beyond SAD, is underway, with a Phase 2A clinical study in adults experiencing Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety (AjDA). We are preparing to expand our PH94B exploratory program in 2022 by initiating Phase 2A biomarker studies as an initial step in assessing PH94B’s therapeutic potential in each of procedural anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. We are also preparing to initiate our exploratory postpartum anxiety program for PH94B with a Phase 1 lactation study as a first step to assess whether PH94B is excreted to breast milk.

PH10 is being developed as a stand-alone treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) and potentially other depression disorders. Exploratory Phase 2A clinical development of PH10 for MDD has been completed. Based on the positive results demonstrated in that study, we are preparing for further clinical development of PH10 for MDD, including, but not limited to, a planned Phase 2B clinical study.

Exploratory Phase 1B clinical development of AV-101 in combination with probenecid is underway in the U.S. to further assess the potential of the combination in multiple neurological indications involving the NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptor.

Our goal is to become a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes innovative CNS therapies for highly prevalent neuropsychiatric and neurological indications where current treatment options are inadequate to meet the needs of millions of patients worldwide.

Our Product Candidates

PH94B Nasal Spray

PH94B is a first-in-class, odorless, tasteless rapid-onset (approximately 15 minutes) synthetic investigational pherine nasal spray with a novel mechanism of action (MOA) that regulates the olfactory-amygdala neural circuits of fear and anxiety and attenuates the tone of the sympathetic autonomic nervous system. Based on positive Phase 2 data in SAD patients, VistaGen is currently evaluating PH94B in two Phase 3 clinical studies in the U.S., PALISADE-1 and PALISADE-2, and a long-term safety study, for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. Designed for intranasal administration in low microgram doses, the novel MOA of PH94B is fundamentally differentiated from all current anti-anxiety medications, including all antidepressants approved by the FDA for treatment of SAD, as well as all benzodiazepines and beta blockers prescribed for treatment of SAD on an off-label basis. VistaGen’s proposed MOA for PH94B does not involve either direct activation of GABA-A receptors or binding to neuronal receptors in the CNS. Rather, PH94B’s proposed MOA involves binding to peripheral chemosensory neurons in the nasal passages to regulate the olfactory-amygdala fear and anxiety neural circuits. Both clinical and preclinical data suggest that PH94B has the potential to achieve rapid-onset anti-anxiety effects without systemic uptake or transport into the brain, reducing the risk of benzodiazepine-like side effects and other safety concerns.

Our ongoing PALISADE Phase 3 Program for PH94B is designed to further demonstrate its potential as a fast-acting, non-sedating, non-addictive acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. In addition to SAD, for which the FDA has granted Fast Track designation, we also have potential opportunities to develop PH94B in adjustment disorder with anxiety, procedural anxiety, PTSD, postpartum anxiety and panic disorder.

PH10 Nasal Spray

PH10 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine nasal spray with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for depression disorders. PH10, which is administered at microgram-level doses, engages and activates chemosensory cells in the nasal passages, connected to neural circuits in the brain that produce antidepressant effects. Specifically, in a manner similar to PH94B, PH10’s proposed MOA involves binding to peripheral chemosensory neurons in the nasal passages to regulate the olfactory-amygdala neural circuits believed to increase activity of the limbic-hypothalamic sympathetic nervous system and increase the release of catecholamines. Importantly, unlike all currently approved oral antidepressants (ADs) and rapid-onset ketamine-based therapy (KBT), including both intravenous ketamine and intranasal ketamine (esketamine), we believe PH10 does not require systemic uptake and distribution to produce rapid-onset of antidepressant effects. In all clinical studies completed to date, PH10 has been well-tolerated and has not caused psychological side effects (such as dissociation and hallucinations) or other safety concerns that may be associated with KBT. Our planned Phase 2B clinical program for PH10 is designed to further demonstrate its potential as a fast-acting stand-alone treatment for MDD. We also have potential opportunities to develop PH10 for multiple other depression-related disorders.

AV-101

Abnormal function of the NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor), an ionotropic glutamate receptor in the brain, is associated with numerous CNS disorders. AV-101 is an oral prodrug of 7-chloro-kynurenic acid (7-Cl-KYNA), which is a potent and selective full antagonist of the glycine co-agonist site of the NMDAR that inhibits the function of the NMDAR. Unlike ketamine and many other NMDAR antagonists, 7-Cl-KYNA is not an ion channel blocker. At doses administered in all studies completed to date, AV-101 has been observed to be well tolerated and has not exhibited dissociative or hallucinogenic psychological side effects or safety concerns. In light of these observations and findings from preclinical studies, we believe that AV-101, in combination with FDA-approved oral probenecid, has potential to become a new oral treatment alternative for certain CNS indications involving the NMDAR. We are conducting an exploratory Phase 1B drug-drug interaction clinical study of AV-101.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to be a leading biopharmaceutical company committed to development and commercialization of novel proprietary CNS therapies that go beyond the current standard of care for treatment of anxiety, depression and other CNS diseases and disorders with high unmet need. Key elements of our strategy to achieve our goal are as follows:

Our CNS Product Pipeline

The following table summarizes the status of our CNS clinical development programs as of the filing date of this Annual Report.

PH94B Nasal Spray

Social Anxiety Disorder

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) affects over 25 million Americans. A person with SAD feels intense, persistent symptoms of anxiety or fear in certain social situations, such as meeting new people, dating, being on a job interview, answering a question in class, or talking to a cashier in a store. Doing common everyday things in front of people - such as eating or drinking in front of others or using a public restroom - causes profound anxiety or fear of being humiliated, evaluated, judged, or rejected. The fear that people with SAD have in social situations is so strong that they feel it is beyond their ability to control. SAD can get in the way of going to work, attending school, or doing a wide variety of things in situations that have a potential for interpersonal interaction. People with SAD may worry about these and other things for weeks before they happen. Sometimes, they end up staying away from places or events where they think they might have to do something that will embarrass them. Some people with SAD do not have anxiety in social situations, but instead have performance anxiety. They feel physical symptoms of anxiety in performance situations, such as giving a lecture, a speech or a presentation at school or work, as well as playing a sports game, or dancing or playing a musical instrument on stage. Without treatment, SAD can last for many years or a lifetime and lead to avoidance and opportunity costs that can significantly impact a person's employment, social activities and relationships, and be very disruptive to overall quality of life.

Existing treatments for SAD have not been effective acute treatment options for the large patient population suffering from SAD. Only a small number of chronic oral antidepressant drugs (ADs), are approved by the FDA specifically for treatment of SAD, and no drug is FDA-approved for acute, on-demand treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. These FDA-approved chronic oral ADs have slow onset of effect (often many weeks or months) and significant side effects that may make them inadequate or inappropriate treatment alternatives for many individuals affected by acute SAD episodes. Benzodiazepines, often referred to as “benzos,” and beta blockers, both of which have not been studied systematically in controlled studies for acute treatment of SAD. They are not FDA-approved to treat SAD, but are prescribed on an off-label basis by psychiatrists and other physicians for the treatment of SAD. Unlike ADs, which can take several weeks to take full effect, benzodiazepines, which act as direct positive modulators of GABA-A receptors, have a rapid-onset effect by potentiating GABA-A and slowing the nervous system to induce a calming effect that can last up to twelve hours. However, the safety concerns, including risk of abuse and misuse, and side effects of benzodiazepines, many of which are similar to the side effects of alcohol, also can appear rapidly. Extended use of benzodiazepines may lead to physical dependence. Also, discontinuing and weaning off use of benzodiazepines can take up to many months, often resulting in severe withdrawal symptoms, including muscle pain, sweating, blurred vision, depression, seizures and delirium tremens similar to those experienced with alcohol withdrawal. Benzodiazepines users can also build up a tolerance that requires increasingly larger doses over time. When taken with opioid drugs, benzodiazepine use may be quite dangerous, so much so that in September 2020 the FDA issued an update to its 2016 Drug Safety Communication requiring that benzodiazepines display a “black box” label on bottles to warn against their potential for dangerous interactions with opioids, as well as potential risk of abuse, misuse, overuse and addiction. We believe PH94B, with its rapid-onset anti-anxiety effects, demonstrated in Phase 2 development without requiring systemic uptake, and its lack of benzodiazepine-like side effects and safety concerns in all clinical studies completed to date, has potential to substantially displace ADs, benzodiazepines and beta blockers in the current treatment paradigm for SAD.

In a peer-reviewed, published, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial (n=91), with Dr. Michael Liebowitz, the innovator of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), as principal investigator, PH94B was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing both public-speaking (performance) anxiety (p=0.002) and social interaction anxiety (p=0.009) in laboratory-induced challenges of individuals with SAD, as assessed using patient-reported anxiety ratings on the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) within 15 minutes of self-administration of a non-systemic 1.6 microgram dose of PH94B.

In all Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies completed to date, PH94B’s safety profile has been exceptional, without indication of abuse potential, psychological side effects (such as dissociation, euphoria or hallucinations), sedation or other side effects and safety concerns that may be associated with ADs approved by the FDA for treatment of SAD, as well as with benzodiazepines and beta blockers prescribed off-label.

Based on its novel mechanism of pharmacological action, rapid-onset of therapeutic effects and exceptional safety and tolerability profile in all clinical studies to date, we have initiated our PH94B PALISADE Phase 3 Program with PALISADE-1, a U.S., multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of PH94B for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. Both PALISADE-2, which Phase 3 study is a mirror image of PALISADE-1, and our PALISADE Long-term Safety study as well as preparations for the additional studies required to support our potential U.S. New Drug Application (NDA) for that indication should our PH94B PALISADE Phase 3 Program for SAD be successful, are also underway. With respect to SAD, we plan to develop and commercialize PH94B, on our own in the U.S. and with collaborators in markets outside the U.S. We believe PH94B has the potential to be the first FDA-approved, fast-acting, on-demand, acute treatment of anxiety for adults with SAD. We have also submitted to the FDA our preliminary plan to develop and commercialize PH94B in a similar manner for the acute treatment of anxiety in pediatric patients with SAD.

Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety

Almost everyone experiences significant life events, changes, or stressors and while some individuals adjust to such changes within a few months, others cannot and may struggle with adjustment disorder. Adjustment disorder with anxiety (AjDA) is an emotional or behavioral reaction considered excessive or disproportionate to a sudden change, stressful event or major life change, such as loss of work, divorce or health setback, occurring within three months of the stressor, and/or significantly impairing a person’s social, occupational and/or other important areas of functioning. The stress-related disturbance does not represent normal bereavement or meet the criteria for another mental disorder and is not merely an exacerbation of a preexisting mental disorder.

The mental health stressors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have directly or indirectly affected hundreds of millions of individuals around the world and have considerably increased the prevalence of AjDA. We believe the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be long-term and varied across a wide range of anxiety disorders. PH94B has potential as a novel, treatment of anxiety for adults with AjDA, including stress and impaired functioning as a result of recent-onset of stressors brought on by the health, safety, economic and social circumstances, including, but not limited to, circumstances related to and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and civil, economic, political and social unrest. In parallel with our ongoing PALISADE Phase 3 Program in SAD, we are also conducting an exploratory Phase 2A clinical study of PH94B to evaluate the use of PH94B for the potential treatment of anxiety in adults with AjDA. Dr. Michael Liebowitz, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia University and director of the Medical Research Network in New York City, is the Principal Investigator of the exploratory Phase 2A study.

We are also preparing to assess additional potential development opportunities involving PH94B, including Phase 1B biomarker studies and Phase 2A clinical studies of PH94B, for potential use in the treatment of other anxiety-related disorders, including procedural anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, postpartum anxiety and panic disorder.

PH10 Nasal Spray

Major Depressive Disorder

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

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

In a peer-reviewed, published exploratory Phase 2A clinical study (n=30), PH10, self-administered at a dose of 6.4 micrograms, was well-tolerated and demonstrated significant (p=0.022) rapid-onset antidepressant effects, which were sustained over an 8-week period, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HAM-D-17), without side effects or safety concerns that may be caused by certain oral ADs or intravenous or intranasal ketamine-based therapy (KBT).

With its potential for rapid-onset activity at a 6.4 microgram-level dose that we believe does not require systemic uptake to achieve sustained antidepressant effects, as well as a safety profile in studies completed to date that is differentiated from current ADs, we believe PH10 has transformative potential an innovative stand-alone treatment for MDD and potential opportunities for development in multiple additional depression disorders. Based on positive results from the exploratory PH10 Phase 2A program, we are conducting the necessary nonclinical studies necessary to support submission of our Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA for further clinical development of in MDD in the U.S. Our goal is to submit our PH10 IND in MDD in 2022, and, if authorized by the FDA, begin Phase 2B clinical development of PH10 for MDD as soon as practicable thereafter. Although our initial plan is to develop PH94B as a new stand-alone rapid-onset therapy for MDD, we also believe PH10 has potential opportunities for development as a stand-alone therapy for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), postpartum depression (PPD) and suicidal ideation (SI), and as an adjunctive therapy to augment current FDA-approved ADs for individuals with MDD, TRD, PPD and SI who have an inadequate response to their current ADs and to prevent relapse following successful treatment with KBT.

AV-101 in combination with Probenecid

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

Discoveries from successful AV-101 in vivo preclinical studies suggest that there is a substantial increase in brain concentrations of AV-101 and 7-Cl-KYNA when AV-101 is given together with probenecid, a drug approved by the FDA for treatment of gout which is known to block activity of certain organic ion efflux transporters in the kidney. These surprising results in the brain were first revealed in our recent preclinical studies and are consistent with well-documented clinical studies of probenecid increasing the therapeutic levels in the blood of several unrelated classes of approved drugs, including certain antibacterial, anticancer and antivirals. Many clinical studies demonstrate that probenecid is safe and well tolerated. Probenecid administered adjunctively with AV-101 in an animal model resulted in substantial increased brain concentrations of AV-101 (7-fold) and 7-Cl-KYNA (35-fold). We also recently identified that these increases in brain levels could result from blocking of some of the same transporters in the blood brain barrier that are expressed in the kidney, which are used to regulate drug levels in the blood. This 7-Cl-KYNA efflux-blocking effect of probenecid, with the resulting increased brain levels and duration of 7-Cl-KYNA, suggests the potential impact of AV-101 with probenecid could result in far more profound therapeutic benefits for patients with NMDAR-focused CNS diseases and disorders. Nonclinical results also indicate that chronic administration of 4-Cl-KYN induces hippocampal neurogenesis, a hallmark of drugs that have antidepressive effects, and increases endogenous levels of KYNA, which also is a functional NMDAR glycine site antagonist.

We are conducting a Phase 1B drug-drug interaction clinical study of AV-101 with adjunctive probenecid in the second half of 2021 to evaluate their safety in combination and potential for future exploratory Phase 2A development in one or more of the CNS indications for which we have existing encouraging preclinical data with AV-101 alone, including MDD, epilepsy, levodopa-induced dyskinesia, and neuropathic pain.

Intellectual Property

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

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

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

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

Patents

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

PH94B (licensed by us from Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pherin))

The U.S. patents related to PH94B will nominally expire either in 2025 or 2028, respectively, and foreign patents nominally expire in 2026, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

PH94B patent application owned by VistaGen

Patents that may be granted on this patent application nominally will expire in 2041, including in the U.S.

PH10 (licensed by us from Pherin)

● One granted U.S. patent related to treatment of depressive disorders; and

● Granted foreign patents related to treatment of depressive disorders.

The U.S. and foreign patents related to PH10 nominally expire in 2033, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

AV-101

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

Stem Cell Technology (owned by us and/or licensed by us from the University Health Network (Toronto) or Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

Cardiac Cells

The U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to cardiac stem cells nominally expire between 2031 and 2037, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S. Additionally, therapeutic and certain other fields of use have been licensed by us to Bayer under the Bayer Agreement.

Blood Cells

The U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to blood stem cells nominally expire between 2023 and 2032, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

Cartilage and Chondrocyte Cells

The U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to cartilage and chrondrocyte cells nominally expire in 2034, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

Liver and Biliary Cells

The U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to liver and biliary cells nominally expire between 2021 and 2034, including in the U.S.

Patent Term

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

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

Data Exclusivity

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

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

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

Trade Secrets

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

Trademarks

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

Strategic Transactions and Relationships

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

We have entered into, and may seek multiple additional strategic collaborations and relationships focused on development and/or commercialization of our product candidates in regions outside the U.S.

Commercial Agreements

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

Material License Agreements

Exclusive License and Collaboration Agreements with Pherin

In September 2018, we acquired from Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pherin) an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize PH94B. In October 2018, we acquired from Pherin an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize PH10. Under the terms of the PH94B and PH10 license agreements, we are obligated to make additional cash payments, and pay royalties, to Pherin in connection with our sublicense, development and commercialization collaborations involving PH94B and/or PH10, as well as in the event that certain development milestones and commercial sales are achieved. Additionally, in connection with the license agreements, we were obligated to pay to Pherin monthly support payments of $10,000 for a term of the earlier of 18 months from the date of each license agreement or the termination of the license agreement; however, no monthly support payment was required under the 18-month period identified in the PH10 license agreement if support payments were already being made under the terms of the PH94B license agreement. In April 2020, we completed all of our obligations to pay all such monthly support payments to Pherin under the PH94B license agreement and the PH10 license agreement, and thus the contractual requirements have been fully satisfied.

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

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

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

Manufacturing and Supply

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

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

Sales and Marketing

We intend to build a commercial infrastructure in the United States in advance of potential drug approval of PH94B by the FDA should our PALISADE Phase 3 Program be successful. We believe that we can cost effectively implement a targeted sales force required to commercialize PH94B and our other product candidates, if approved, in the United States. Support for commercialization readiness will include marketing, insights and analytics, internal sales support, distribution support, and potentially patient support services. Additional requisite capabilities will include focused management of key accounts such as managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations, and government accounts. We expect to focus our future sales and marketing efforts for PH94B and our other product candidates in the United States, if FDA-approved, primarily on psychiatrists and select primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, and, should we receive FDA approval for use in adolescent populations, on select pediatricians who are likely to see adolescents, as well as nurse practitioners, child psychiatrists and psychologists who, in some states, are permitted to prescribe medications. In order to implement this infrastructure, we will have to allocate management resources and make significant financial investments, including some prior to product approval. At a future time, we may seek co-promotion partners for our sales efforts to achieve broader reach or call frequency with an expanded group of appropriate target physicians in the United States.

We believe that there are significant market opportunities for our products outside of the United States. As a result, as we have done for PH94B in Greater China, South Korea and Southeast Asia under the AffaMed Agreement, we plan to seek additional strategic partnerships with third parties, which may have better access and experience in the development and commercialization of our products in selected markets outside the United States. We may elect in the future to utilize additional strategic partners, distributors, or contract sales forces to assist in the development and commercialization of our products.

Competition

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

Currently there is no FDA-approved acute treatment of anxiety for adults with SAD. Also, there are no FDA-approved therapies for SAD with the mechanism of action of PH94B, and we are aware of no company developing a potential acute treatment of anxiety for adults with SAD that is a nasal spray and involves the same mechanism of pharmacological action as PH94B. We are aware of several companies that are developing therapies targeting acute treatment in the SAD market, including, among others, Bionomics, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and Receptor Life Sciences. In addition, we may face competition to PH94B for acute treatment of anxiety in adult and adolescent patients with SAD from generic antidepressants as well as off-label use of generic benzodiazepines and generic beta blockers even though no drug in either of such generic drug classes has been systematically developed for treatment of SAD and thus no drug in either of such generic drug classes has been FDA-approved for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. Although there are three oral antidepressants approved by the FDA for the chronic treatment of SAD, such drugs do not achieve rapid-onset therapeutic effects and are associated with undesirable side effects. Cognitive behavioral therapy is also an important treatment approach to SAD that may be used along with or instead of pharmacological treatments, including antidepressants, benzodiazepines, beta blockers, PH94B and other drug candidates in clinical development.

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

Government Regulation and Product Approval

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

FDA Regulation

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

· compilation of required information and submission to the FDA of an NDA;

· satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

Preclinical Studies and IND Submission

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

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

Clinical Trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NDA Submission, Review by the FDA, and Marketing Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Marketing Applications

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

505(b)(2) Approval Process

Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, provides an alternate regulatory pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved drug products. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch‐Waxman Act amendments, and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. The applicant may rely, in part, upon the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved product that acts as the reference listed drug or on published scientific literature, in support of its application. The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to support the changes from the reference listed drug as well as bridging studies to the reference listed drug. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Orange Book Listing

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Exclusivity

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

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

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

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

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post‐approval Requirements

Any product manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, as well as other federal and state agencies, including, among other things, requirements related to manufacturing, recordkeeping, and reporting, including adverse experience reporting, drug shortage reporting, and other periodic reporting; drug supply chain security surveillance and tracking requirements; product sampling and distribution; advertising; marketing; promotion; certain electronic records and signatures; licensure in certain states for the manufacturing and distribution of drug products; and post-approval obligations imposed as a condition of approval, such as Phase 4 clinical trials, REMS, and surveillance to assess safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

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

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

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

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

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

Fraud and Abuse, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage and Reimbursement Generally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healthcare Reform Measures

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

For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) established a prescription drug benefit program for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both standalone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, which do not utilize formularies to restrict coverage, Part D coverage varies by plan. With some exceptions, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for any products for which we receive marketing approval. However, Part D plans use competition for coverage to leverage manufacturer rebates. Further, the law requires manufacturers to absorb a significant percentage of the prescription price paid for NDA drugs, including 504(b)(2) drugs, during a beneficiary’s coverage gap. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 permanently increased manufacturer liability for the prescription price in the coverage gap from 50% to 70% beginning in 2019, while simultaneously accelerating closure of the gap. These cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of the legislation, as well as any negotiated price discounts for our future products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan, may decrease the coverage and reimbursement rate that we receive, lower the net price realized on our sales to pharmacies, or both. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non‐governmental payers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

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

Foreign Regulation

VTGN US Equity

VTGN · 10-K · period ended 2022-03-31

Item 1. Business

VTGN US Equity☆

VTGN · 10-K · period ended 2022-03-31

Item 1. Business

VTGN US Equity