10-K

kmph20201231_10k.htm

FORM 10-K

kmph20161231_10k.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

Commission File No. 001-36913

KemPharm, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

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

Title of Each Class Trading Symbol Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒ Emerging growth company ☐

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2020, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $18.5 million, based upon the closing sales price for the registrant’s common stock, as reported on the OTC Markets Venture Market, or OTCQB, on June 30, 2020. The calculation of the aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common equity excludes 170,390 shares of common stock the registrant held by executive officers, directors and stockholders that the registrant concluded were affiliates of the registrant on that date. Exclusion of such shares should not be construed to indicate that any such person possesses the power, direct or indirect, to direct or cause the direction of management or policies of the registrant or that such person is controlled by or under common control with the registrant.

As of March 10, 2021, the registrant had 28,376,321 shares of common stock outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2021 annual meeting of stockholders are incorporated herein by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. Such proxy statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. Except with respect to information specifically incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the definitive proxy statement is not deemed to be filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

KEMPHARM, INC.

FORM 10-K

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 6

Item 1A. Risk Factors 27

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 83

Item 2. Properties 83

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 83

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 83

PART II

Item 6. Selected Financial Data 84

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 110

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 110

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 110

Item 9B. Other Information 111

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 112

Item 11. Executive Compensation 112

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 112

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 113

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains forward-looking statements regarding future events and our future results that are subject to the safe harbors created under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Forward-looking statements relate to future events or our future financial performance. We generally identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “would,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “could,” “intends,” “target,” “projects,” “contemplates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “assume,” “intend,” “potential,” “continue” or other similar words or the negative of these terms. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The outcome of the events described in these forward-looking statements is subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors described in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, you should not place undue reliance upon these forward-looking statements. We cannot assure you that the events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur, the timing of events and circumstances and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

● our expectations regarding federal, state and foreign regulatory requirements;

● the timing of commercializing our products and product candidates; and

● other factors discussed elsewhere in this report.

The forward-looking statements made in this report relate only to events as of the date on which the statements are made. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this report, particularly in the section entitled “Risk Factors” that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make. Except as required by law, we do not assume any intent to update any forward-looking statements after the date on which the statement is made, whether as a result of new information, future events or circumstances or otherwise.

RISK FACTORS SUMMARY

The risk factors summarized below could materially harm our business, operating results, and/or financial condition, impair our future prospects, and/or cause the price of our common stock to decline. These risks are discussed more fully in the section titled "Risk Factors". Material risks that may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and trading price of our common stock include the following:

NOTE REGARDING COMPANY REFERENCE

Unless the context otherwise requires, we use the terms “KemPharm,” “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to refer to KemPharm, Inc. We have proprietary rights to a number of trademarks used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are important to our business, including KemPharm, LAT and the KemPharm logo. All other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are referred to without the ® and TM symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto.

NOTE REGARDING MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains statistical data, estimates and forecasts that are based on independent industry publications or other publicly available information, as well as other information based on our internal sources. While we believe the industry and market data included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is reliable and is based on reasonable assumptions, this data involves many assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to these estimates. We have not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of the data contained in these industry publications and other publicly available information. The industry in which we operate is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

Overview

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of proprietary prodrugs to treat serious medical conditions through our proprietary Ligand Activated Therapy, or LAT®, technology. We utilize our proprietary LAT technology to generate improved prodrug versions of drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, as well as to generate prodrug versions of existing compounds that may have applications for new disease indications. Our product candidate pipeline is focused on the high need areas of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, and stimulant use disorder, or SUD, and idiopathic hypersomnia, or IH. Our newly approved product, AZSTARYSTM, formerly referred to as KP415, and KP484, are both based on a prodrug of d-methylphenidate, or d-MPH, but with differing extended-release, or ER, effect profiles, and are intended for the treatment of ADHD. Our lead clinical development product candidate, KP879, is also based on a prodrug of d-MPH and is intended for the treatment of stimulant use disorder, or SUD. Our preclinical prodrug product candidate for the treatment of ideopathic hypersomnia, or IH, is KP1077. We have entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Commave Therapeutics SA (formerly known as Boston Pharmaceuticals S.A.), an affiliate of Gurnet Point Capital, or Commave, for the development, manufacture and commercialization of AZSTARYS, and any other of our product candidates containing serdexmethylphenidate, or SDX, and d-MPH. In addition, we have entered into a commercial partnership with KVK-Tech, Inc., or KVK, for APADAZ®, an FDA approved immediate-release, or IR, combination product of benzhydrocodone, our prodrug of hydrocodone, and acetaminophen, or APAP, for the short-term (no more than 14 days) management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate.

On March 2, 2021, we announced that the FDA approved the NDA for AZSTARYS, a once-daily product for the treatment of ADHD in patients ranging from six years and older. Corium will lead the commercialization of AZSTARYS per the KP415 License Agreement. Corium expects to make AZSTARYS commercially available in the U.S. as early as the second half of 2021.

In July 2020, we entered into a consultation services arrangement, or the Corium Consulting Agreement, with Corium, Inc., or Corium, under which Corium engaged us to guide the product development and regulatory activities for certain current and potential future products in Corium’s portfolio, as well as to continue supporting preparation for the potential commercial launch of AZSTARYS. Corium is a portfolio company of Gurnet Point Capital and has been tasked with leading all commercialization activities for AZSTARYS under the KP415 License Agreement.

In September 2019, we entered into our collaboration and license agreement, or the KP415 License Agreement, with Commave, for the development, manufacture and commercialization of our product candidates containing SDX and d-MPH, including AZSTARYS and KP484. In addition, the KP415 License Agreement provides Commave a right of first negotiation upon the completion of a Phase 1 proof-of-concept study for KP879, KP922 or any other product candidate developed by us containing SDX and intended to treat ADHD or any other central nervous system disorder.

In October 2018, we entered into our collaboration and license agreement, or the APADAZ License Agreement, with KVK. Under the APADAZ License Agreement, we granted an exclusive license to KVK to conduct regulatory activities for, manufacture and commercialize APADAZ in the United States. In collaboration with KVK, APADAZ was first available for sale nationally beginning in November 2019. In December 2020, KVK, began a regional pilot launch of APADAZ in the state of Alabama, with plans to expand into additional geographic regions during 2021.

We employ our proprietary LAT technology to discover and develop prodrugs that are new molecules that can improve one or more of the attributes of approved drugs, such as enhanced bioavailability, extended duration of action, increased safety and reduced susceptibility to abuse. A prodrug is a precursor chemical compound of a drug that is inactive or less than fully active, which is then converted in the body to the active form of the drug through a normal metabolic process. Where possible, we seek, to develop prodrugs that will be eligible for approval under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FFDCA, otherwise known as a 505(b)(2) NDA, which allows us to rely on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness for one or more approved products, if we demonstrate such reliance is scientifically appropriate.

We intend to advance our pipeline of product candidates for the treatment of ADHD, SUD and IH, and we anticipate initiating a Phase 1 proof-of-concept study for KP879 in 2021. We plan to employ our LAT technology and development expertise to develop additional product candidates that address significant unmet medical needs in therapeutic indications which have few existing product options. We believe our product candidates may be eligible for composition-of-matter patent protection and we intend to use the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway when available, which we believe has the potential to reduce drug development time, risk and expense.

Our Proprietary LAT Technology

We employ our proprietary LAT technology to create prodrugs that are new molecules by chemically attaching one or more molecules, referred to as ligands, to an FDA-approved parent drug. We typically use ligands that have been demonstrated to be safe in toxicological studies or have been granted Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, status by the FDA. When the prodrug is administered, human metabolic processes, such as those in the gastrointestinal, or GI, tract, separate the ligand from the prodrug and release the parent drug, which can then exert its therapeutic effect. We select ligands that, when combined with the parent drug, create prodrugs believed to have improved drug attributes while maintaining efficacy potentially equivalent to the parent drug.

We believe that our proprietary LAT technology offers the following potential benefits:

The Unmet Need for Addressing Early Morning Behavioral Deficits and Maintaining Consistent, Sustained Efficacy in Daily ADHD Treatment

The ADHD market is relatively well-served by a number of methylphenidate and amphetamine stimulant products. However, we believe there is a significant need for longer duration products. While a few of the currently-marketed methylphenidate products are labeled as providing some level symptom control for up to 12 hours post-dose, there is increasing attention to addressing late afternoon/early evening behavioral deficits, while also providing symptom control sooner following dosing.

A study published in a peer-reviewed journal characterized the frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms throughout the day in children and adolescents treated with stable doses of stimulant medications. Results of that particular study indicated that the time from awakening to arriving at school can comprise up to 20% of waking hours per day (2-3 hours), and therefore such symptoms can cause significant distress for both children and caregivers. As a result, we believe there is a need to develop a methylphenidate product that provides early-morning control of symptoms.

In addition to early onset, patients require sustained, consistent efficacy throughout the day and into the early evening hours. While currently marketed methylphenidate products offer efficacy for up to 12 hours, this duration may not be sufficient for all patients. Particularly adolescents and adults may often require longer effects as they have longer waking hours compared to younger patients. It has been reported in a peer-reviewed journal that these patients are typically using dose-augmentation strategies by taking additional doses of stimulant later in the day. We believe a single dose therapy that provides effective symptom control without requiring additional doses may have several benefits including, potentially, improved dosage compliance by regularly and consistently taking medication as indicated, reduced social embarrassment by avoiding the need to take medication during working hours, and overall improvement in quality of life through more consistent therapy. Based on this evidence, we believe there is a need to develop a methylphenidate product that can deliver long duration of efficacy. There may also be a need to develop a long-duration stimulant with and without very early onset depending on individual patient preference and requirements.

Our Product Candidates and Approved Products

We have employed our proprietary LAT technology to create a portfolio of product candidates and approved products that we believe will offer significant improvements over FDA-approved and widely-prescribed drugs.

A selection of our product candidates and approved products are summarized in the table below:

Selected KemPharm Partnered and Other Development Assets

Parent Drug (Effect Profile) Product Candidate / Product Development Next

(Indication) (Status) Status Milestone

Methylphenidate (ER) (SUD) KP879* Clinical Initiation of Clinical Program - 2021

Prodrug (IH) KP1077 Preclinical Pre-IND Meeting - H1 2021

AZSTARYS and KP484

Overview

The prodrug in both AZSTARYS and KP484 is serdexmethylphenidate, or SDX, and both product candidates are intended for the treatment of ADHD. The ADHD market is largely served by the stimulant products methylphenidate and amphetamine. Both AZSTARYS and KP484 are designed to be extended-duration methylphenidate products.

On March 2, 2021, we announced that the FDA approved the NDA for AZSTARYS, a once-daily product for the treatment of ADHD in patients ranging from six years and older. Subject to Commave’s approval, we intend to seek approval of KP484 under the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, which will allow us to rely on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness for one or more approved products. The timing for initiating additional PK and pivotal efficacy trials for KP484 is subject to Commave’s direction as provided under the KP415 License Agreement.

In September 2019, we entered into the KP415 License Agreement with Commave. Under the KP415 License Agreement, we granted to Commave an exclusive, worldwide license to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates containing SDX and d-MPH, including AZSTARYS and KP484. In addition, the KP415 License Agreement provides a right of first negotiation upon completion of a Phase 1 proof-of-concept study for KP879, KP922 or any other product candidate developed by us containing SDX and developed to treat ADHD or any other central nervous system disorder, or the Additional Product Candidates and, collectively with AZSTARYS and KP484, the Licensed Product Candidates.

Under the terms of the KP415 License Agreement, we granted Commave an exclusive, worldwide license to commercialize and develop the Licensed Product Candidates; provided that such license shall apply to an Additional Product Candidates only if Commave exercises its option under the KP415 License Agreement related thereto. If Commave exercises its right to first negotiation related to any Additional Product Candidate under the KP415 License Agreement, the parties are obligated to negotiate in good faith regarding the economic terms of such Additional Product Candidate.

We also granted to Commave a right of first refusal to acquire, license or commercialize any Additional Product Candidate, with such right of first refusal expiring upon the acceptance of a new drug application for such Additional Product Candidate. In addition, we granted Commave a right of first negotiation and a right of first refusal, subject to specified exceptions, for any assignment of our rights under the KP415 License Agreement.

Pursuant to the KP415 License Agreement, Commave paid us an upfront payment of $10.0 million and agreed to pay up to $63.0 in milestone payments upon the occurrence of specified regulatory milestones related to the AZSTARYS, including FDA approval and specified conditions with respect to the final approval label, and KP484. As a result of the FDA’s approval of the AZSTARYS NDA, we have earned a regulatory milestone payment following FDA approval as provided under the KP415 License Agreement, and we have invoiced Commave for such payment, which is payable within thirty (30) days following the PDUFA date for AZSTARYS, which was March 2, 2021. In addition, Commave agreed to make additional payments upon the achievement of specified U.S. sales milestones of up to $420.0 million in the aggregate. Further, Commave will pay us quarterly, tiered royalty payments ranging from a percentage in the high single digits to the mid-twenties of Net Sales (as defined in the KP415 License Agreement) in the United States and a percentage in the low to mid-single digits of Net Sales in each country outside the United States, in each case subject to specified reductions under certain conditions as described in the KP415 License Agreement. Commave is obligated to make such royalty payments on a product-by-product basis until expiration of the Royalty Term (as defined in the KP415 License Agreement) for the applicable product.

Commave agreed to be responsible for and reimburse us for all of development, commercialization and regulatory expenses for the Licensed Product Candidates, subject to certain limitations as set forth in the KP415 License Agreement, including consultation fees to be paid to us for services provided to Commave in performing such activities.

The KP415 License Agreement will continue on a product-by-product basis (i) until expiration of the Royalty Term for the applicable Licensed Product Candidate in the United States and (ii) perpetually for all other countries. Commave may terminate the KP415 License Agreement at its convenience upon prior written notice prior to regulatory approval of any Licensed Product Candidate or upon prior written notice after regulatory approval of any Licensed Product Candidate. We may terminate the KP415 License Agreement in full if Commave, any of its sublicensees or any of its or their affiliates challenge the validity of any Licensed Patent (as defined in the KP415 License Agreement) and such challenge is not required under a court order or subpoena and is not a defense against a claim, action or proceeding asserted by us. Either party may terminate the KP415 License Agreement (i) upon a material breach of the KP415 License Agreement by the other party, subject to a cure period, or (ii) if the other party encounters bankruptcy or insolvency. Upon a Serious Material Breach (as defined in the KP415 License Agreement) by us, subject to a cure period, Commave may choose not to terminate the KP415 License Agreement and instead reduce the milestone and royalty payments owed to us. Upon termination, all licenses and other rights granted by us to Commave pursuant to the KP415 License Agreement would revert to us. During the term of the KP415 License Agreement, we may not develop or commercialize any Competing Product (as defined in the KP415 License Agreement).

The KP415 License Agreement established a joint steering committee, which monitors progress in the development of both AZSTARYS and KP484. Subject to the oversight of the joint steering committee, we otherwise retain all responsibility for the conduct of all regulatory activities required to obtain NDA approval of both AZSTARYS and KP484; provided that Commave shall be the sponsor of any clinical trials conducted by us on behalf of Commave.

Under our March 2012 asset purchase agreement with Shire, Shire had a right of first refusal to acquire, license or commercialize AZSTARYS and KP484. In January 2019, Shire was acquired by Takeda to whom this right of first refusal was transferred at that time. Takeda did not exercise this right of first refusal as part of the KP415 License Agreement.

Under our March 2012 termination agreement with Aquestive, Aquestive has the right to receive a royalty amount equal to 10% of any value generated by AZSTARYS, KP484 or KP879, and any product candidates which contain SDX, including royalty payments on any license of AZSTARYS, KP484 or KP879, the sale of AZSTARYS, KP484 or KP879 to a third party, the commercialization of AZSTARYS, KP484 or KP879 and the portion of any consideration that is attributable to the value of AZSTARYS, KP484 or KP879 and paid to us or our stockholders in a change of control transaction. In connection with the KP415 License Agreement, we paid Aquestive a royalty equal to 10% of the upfront license payment we received in the third quarter of 2019 and the regulatory milestone payment we received in the second quarter of 2020. Aquestive will be due to receive a royalty equal to 10% of the of the regulatory milestone payment for the approval of the AZSTARYS NDA upon receipt from Commave.

Market Opportunity

We believe the ADHD market would be receptive to new branded drugs that have improved properties when compared to current treatments. We believe a new product in the form of a prodrug that has differentiated features may provide a new treatment option in this large market segment. While methylphenidate is available as a generic product, the branded formulations, including, among others, CONCERTA, FOCALIN XR, JORNAY PM, QUILLICHEW XR and COTEMPLA XR-ODT rely on formulation alone in attempting to provide differentiation from generics.

Key Features of AZSTARYS

We believe AZSTARYS has valuable product features and may provide significant benefits to patients, physicians, and society when compared to other FDA-approved and widely-prescribed methylphenidate products:

● Earlier onset and extended duration.

● Once-daily dosing.

● Available to treat patients six years and older.

KP879

KP879, a prodrug of d-methylphenidate using our proprietary LAT technology, is our product candidate for the treatment of SUD including, for example, abuse or misuse of cocaine, methamphetamine and prescription stimulants. Currently there are no approved drugs in the United States for SUD. We filed an IND with the FDA for KP879 in December 2020. In January 2021, the FDA completed its review of the KP879 IND, concluding that we may proceed with its planned clinical investigation of the product candidate. We expect to initiate the clinical program for KP879 in 2021.

KP484

Based on our preclinical and clinical data, we believe KP484, if approved by the FDA, may have valuable product features and may provide significant benefits to patients, physicians, and society when compared to other FDA-approved and widely-prescribed methylphenidate products:

KP1077

KP1077 is our prodrug preclinical product candidate for the treatment of IH, an underserved, orphan disease indication. Currently there are no approved drugs in the United States for IH. We expect to hold a pre-IND meeting with the FDA in 2021.

APADAZ

Overview

In February 2018, we announced that the FDA approved APADAZ for the short-term (no more than 14 days) management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. APADAZ is an IR combination of our prodrug, benzhydrocodone, and acetaminophen, or APAP. Benzhydrocodone was developed with our proprietary LAT technology.

In October 2018, we entered into the APADAZ License Agreement with KVK pursuant to which we have granted an exclusive license to KVK to conduct regulatory activities for, manufacture and commercialize APADAZ in the United States.

Pursuant to the APADAZ License Agreement, KVK agreed to pay us certain payments and cost reimbursements of an estimated $3.4 million, which includes a payment of $2.0 million within 10 days of the achievement of a specified milestone related to the initial formulary adoption of APADAZ, or the Initial Adoption Milestone. In addition, KVK has agreed to make additional payments to us upon the achievement of specified sales milestones of up to $53.0 million in the aggregate. Further, we and KVK will share the quarterly net profits of APADAZ by KVK in the United States at specified tiered percentages, ranging from us receiving 30% to 50% of net profits, based on the amount of net sales on a rolling four quarter basis. We are responsible for a portion of commercialization and regulatory expenses for APADAZ until the Initial Adoption Milestone is achieved, after which KVK will be responsible for all expenses incurred in connection with commercialization and maintaining regulatory approval in the United States.

The APADAZ License Agreement will terminate on the later of the date that all of the patent rights for APADAZ have expired in the United States or KVK’s cessation of commercialization of APADAZ in the United States. KVK may terminate the APADAZ License Agreement upon 90 days written notice if a regulatory authority in the United States orders KVK to stop sales of APADAZ due to a safety concern. In addition, after the third anniversary of the APADAZ License Agreement, KVK may terminate the APADAZ License Agreement without cause upon 18 months prior written notice. We may terminate the APADAZ License Agreement if KVK stops conducting regulatory activities for or commercializing APADAZ in the United States for a period of six months, subject to specified exceptions, or if KVK or its affiliates challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of any licensed patent under the APADAZ License Agreement. Both parties may terminate the APADAZ License Agreement (i) upon a material breach of the APADAZ License Agreement, subject to a 30-day cure period, (ii) the other party encounters bankruptcy or insolvency or (iii) if the Initial Adoption Milestone is not achieved. Upon termination, all licenses and other rights granted by us to KVK pursuant to the APADAZ License Agreement would revert to us.

The APADAZ License Agreement also established a joint steering committee, which monitors progress of the commercialization of APADAZ.

In November 2019, APADAZ and its authorized generic became nationally available. To date, KVK has utilized targeted non-traditional efforts to build product awareness for APADAZ as a responsible alternative to currently available hydrocodone/acetaminophen products. For example, in December 2020, KVK began a collaboration with Sure Med Compliance, a provider of compliance and decision support software designed to assist physicians in evaluating the appropriateness of opioid treatment, to provide a patient/provider support program, referred to as Perspectives in Care, to provide education to physicians, pharmacies and patients regarding responsible opioid therapy. The Perspectives in Care program was initially launched as a pilot program for APADAZ in Alabama. We may also license the international commercial rights to APADAZ to one or more collaborators.

Our Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property strategy includes seeking composition-of-matter patents, among other patents, for our prodrugs and product candidates and conjugates of our prodrugs while also protecting, where appropriate as trade secrets, our proprietary LAT technology, the process by which we identify, screen, evaluate and select ligands to be conjugated with parent drugs to create our prodrugs. Our current prodrugs all consist of an approved parent drug and one or more ligands that we have selected using our proprietary LAT technology. The parent drug and ligand or ligands together may potentially constitute a new molecule and thus may be eligible for composition-of-matter patent protection, among other patent protections, in the United States and abroad.

As of December 31, 2020, we have been granted 48 active patents within the United States, and an additional 78 active foreign patents covering our selected prodrugs and product candidates. The terms of the 48 issued U.S. patents extend to various dates ranging, for example, between 2030 and 2037. The term of our overall domestic and foreign patent portfolio related to our selected prodrugs and product candidates, including patent term adjustments but excluding possible patent term extensions, extend to various dates ranging, for example, between 2030 and 2037, if pending patent applications in each of our patent families issue as patents. As of December 31, 2020, we had 13 pending patent applications under active prosecution in the United States, and an additional 28 pending foreign patent applications potentially covering our selected prodrugs and product candidates. Our issued and granted patents provide protection in jurisdictions that include the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, European Countries, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Vietnam.

We have received composition-of-matter patents and also additionally filed composition-of-matter and method of treatment patent applications related to the AZSTARYS and KP484 families in the United States and in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, European Countries, India, Israel, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam. We anticipate filing additional patent applications for our prodrugs and product candidates.

Since 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, has issued 14 composition-of-matter or method of treatment patents covering benzhydrocodone, which will expire, after utilizing all appropriate patent term adjustments but excluding possible patent term extensions, no earlier than 2030. Further, there are granted or recently allowed compositions-of-matter patents covering benzhydrocodone in Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea. Patent applications covering benzhydrocodone were pending as of December 31, 2020, in Thailand and Vietnam.

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our LAT technology, as well as any proprietary know-how and show-how beyond that which is patentable, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we generally require our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and, in some cases, requiring disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries, inventions and improvements important to our business.

Commercialization

In February 2018, we announced that the FDA approved APADAZ for the short-term (no more than 14 days) management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. In October 2018, we entered into the APADAZ License Agreement with KVK pursuant to which we have granted an exclusive license to KVK to conduct regulatory activities for, manufacture and commercialize APADAZ in the United States. In November 2019, APADAZ and its authorized generic (AG-APADAZ) became nationally available. In December 2020, KVK, in collaboration with Sure Med Compliance, initiated a regional launch of the Perspectives in Care program to provide education to physicians, pharmacies and patients regarding responsible opioid therapy and launched a pilot program for APADAZ in Alabama.

With the exception of AZSTARYS and APADAZ, commercialization activities for our product candidates in active development have not yet begun. Because many of our product candidates may have large potential market opportunities, and may require significant marketing resources, we may conclude that the most appropriate approach to their commercialization, if they receive regulatory approval, will involve forming a commercial collaboration or strategic relationship similar to those we have entered into with Commave and KVK, or consummating some type of strategic transaction, with a larger pharmaceutical or other marketing organization. Alternatively, we may conclude that building our own focused sales and marketing organization will be most appropriate, perhaps as part of a co-promotional arrangement, or some other form of collaboration. As we get closer to potential approval of our product candidates which are not currently subject to the KP415 License Agreement or the APADAZ License Agreement, we will work to identify and implement the commercialization strategies that we conclude are the most desirable with regard to the specific product candidates.

Research and Development

Historically, we have devoted a significant amount of resources to develop our product candidates. For the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, we recorded $8.8 million and $19.4 million, respectively, in research and development expenses. We plan to devote a significant portion of our capital towards research and development for the foreseeable future as we continue our efforts to further advance the development of our product candidates.Under the KP415 License Agreement, Commave agreed to be responsible for and reimburse us for all of development, commercialization and regulatory expenses for the Licensed Product Candidates, as defined in the KP415 License Agreement, subject to certain limitations as set forth in the KP415 License Agreement. We are responsible for the development costs required to bring Additional Product Candidates to the successful completion of a Phase 1 proof-of-concept study, or if Commave does not exercise its right of first negotiation at that point, or Commave’s exercise of its right of first negotiation does not culminate in economic terms which are mutually agreeable between Commave and the Company, any additional development costs which would be required to pursue the approval of such product candidate.

Competition

Our industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We will face competition and potential competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. Our competitors may develop or market drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products or product candidates and these competitors may also have significantly more resources than us and be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

AZSTARYS and, if approved, KP484 will compete against currently marketed, branded and generic methylphenidate products for the treatment of ADHD. Some of these currently marketed products include Janssen’s CONCERTA, Tris Pharma’s QUILLIVANT XR and QUILLICHEW ER, Novartis’ RITALIN, FOCALIN and FOCALIN XR, UCB’s METADATE CD, Noven’s DAYTRANA, Neos Therapeutics’ CONTEMPLA XR-ODT, Ironshore Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s JORNAY PM and Adlon Therapeutics’ ADHANSIA XR, in addition to multiple other branded and generic methylphenidate products. In addition, AZSTARYS and, if approved, KP484 will face potential competition from any other methylphenidate products for the treatment of ADHD that are currently in or which may enter into clinical development.

Currently, there are no approved drugs in the United States for the treatment of SUD. If approved, KP879 will face potential competition from any products for the treatment of SUD that are currently in, or which may enter into, clinical development.

Currently, there are no approved drugs in the United States for the treatment of IH. If approved, KP1077 could face potential competition from any products for the treatment of IH that are currently in or which may enter into clinical development.

Manufacturing

Our manufacturing strategy is to rely on contract manufacturers to produce our product candidates for clinical trials and, if approved, drug product for commercial sale. We currently have no manufacturing facilities and limited personnel with manufacturing experience. We rely on Johnson Matthey, Inc., or JMI, a third-party manufacturer, to produce the bulk quantities of benzhydrocodone required to manufacture APADAZ under a supply agreement. We have contracted with another third-party manufacturer to supply AZSTARYS and KP484 to be used in our non-clinical, clinical and formulation development programs necessary to support an NDA filing. We expect that our commercial partners under the KP415 License Agreement and the APADAZ License Agreement will continue to rely initially on these manufacturers to manufacture commercial quantities of AZSTARYS, KP484 and APADAZ for sale in the United States, following approval by the FDA. We expect to contract with third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of all API supply needs outside the United States if and when we receive approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States.

Our current and any future third-party manufacturers, their facilities and all lots of drug substance and drug products used in our clinical trials are required to be in compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our products must meet cGMP requirements and FDA satisfaction before any product is approved and we can manufacture commercial products. Our current and any future third-party manufacturers are also subject to periodic inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, including procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of our products to assess our compliance with applicable regulations.

Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements subjects a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, including 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, cyber letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreements to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, refusals of 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 individual imprisonments.

Asset Purchase Agreement with Shire

In March 2012, as a result of a litigation settlement, we and our chief executive officer, Travis C. Mickle, Ph. D., entered into an asset purchase agreement with Shire pursuant to which we sold assets and intellectual property to Shire for proceeds of $5.1 million. Pursuant to this agreement, we also granted Shire a right of first refusal to acquire, license or commercialize AZSTARYS and KP484. In January 2019, Shire was acquired by Takeda to whom this right of first refusal was transferred at that time. Takeda did not exercise this right of first refusal, and therefore we entered into the KP415 License Agreement with Commave.

Third-Party Reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, such as state and federal governmental authorities, including those that administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and private managed care organizations and health insurers. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for each of our product and product candidates will be made on a plan-by-plan basis. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Each third-party payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug, what amount it will pay providers for the drug, and on what tier of its formulary the drug will be placed. These decisions are influenced by the existence of multiple drug products within a therapeutic class and the net cost to the plan, including the amount of the prescription price, if any, rebated by the drug’s manufacturer. Typically, generic versions of drugs are placed in a preferred tier. The position of a drug on the formulary generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Also, third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. As a result, coverage, reimbursement and placement determinations are complex and are often the subject of extensive negotiations between the payor and the owner of the drug.

Unless we enter into a strategic collaboration under which our collaborator assumes responsibility for seeking coverage and reimbursement for a given product, we will be responsible for negotiating coverage, reimbursement and placement decisions for our product candidates. Coverage, reimbursement and placement decisions for a new product are based on many factors including the coverage, reimbursement and placement of already marketed branded drugs for the same or similar indications, the safety and efficacy of the new product, availability of generics for similar indications, the clinical need for the new product and the cost-effectiveness of the product. Increasingly, both purchasers and payors are also conducting comparative clinical and cost effectiveness analyses involving application of metrics, including data on patient outcomes, provided by manufacturers.

Within the Medicare program, as self-administered drugs, our product and product candidates would be reimbursed under the expanded prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D. This program is a voluntary Medicare benefit administered by private plans that operate under contracts with the federal government. These plans develop formularies that determine which products are covered and what co-pay will apply to covered drugs. The plans have considerable discretion in establishing formularies and tiered co-pay structures, negotiating rebates with manufacturers and placing prior authorization and other restrictions on the utilization of specific products, subject to review by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, for discriminatory practices. These Part D plans negotiate discounts with drug manufacturers, which are passed on, in whole or in part, to each of the plan’s enrollees through reduced premiums. Historically, Part D beneficiaries have been exposed to significant out-of-pocket costs after they surpass an annual coverage limit and until they reach a catastrophic coverage threshold. However, changes made by recent legislation will reduce this patient coverage gap, known as the “donut hole”, by transitioning patient responsibility in that coverage range from 100% in 2010 to only 25% currently. To help achieve this reduction, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to provide quarterly discounts of 70%, which commenced January 1, 2019. In 2020, drug manufacturers became be responsible for a larger share of total drug costs due to an increase to the catastrophic threshold. Such increase will also result in a higher out-of-pocket threshold paid by Part D beneficiaries.

If a drug product is available for reimbursement by Medicare or Medicaid, its manufacturer must comply with various health regulatory requirements and price reporting metrics, which may include, as applicable, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, or the OBRA, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, or the VHCA, each as amended. Among other things, the OBRA requires drug manufacturers with certain drugs covered by Medicaid to pay rebates on prescription drugs to state Medicaid programs. States may also negotiate “supplemental” Medicaid rebates on drug products dispensed under Medicaid. Manufacturers participating in Medicaid are also generally required to participate in the Public Health Service 340B Drug Discount Program, which imposes a mandatory discount on purchases by certain customers. Manufacturers of innovator drugs, including 505(b)(2) drugs, that participate in the Medicaid program are also required to offer the drugs on the Federal Supply Schedule purchasing program of the General Services Administration for purchase by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and other authorized users at a mandatory discount. Additional laws and requirements apply to these contracts. Participation in such federal programs may result in prices for our future products that will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain.

Third-party payors, including the U.S. government, continue to apply downward pressure on the reimbursement of pharmaceutical products. Also, the trend towards managed health care in the United States and the concurrent growth of organizations such as health maintenance organizations may result in lower reimbursement for pharmaceutical products. We expect that these trends will continue as these payors implement various proposals or regulatory policies, including various provisions of the recent health reform legislation that affect reimbursement of these products. There are currently, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement controls on reimbursement and pricing, directly and indirectly.

Government Regulation

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, packaging, recordkeeping, tracking, approval, import, export, distribution, advertising and promotion of our products.

The process required by the FDA before product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

● submission of a NDA to the FDA;

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

Prior to the commencement of marketing of controlled substances, the DEA must also determine the controlled substance schedule, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA.

The testing and approval process 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. Prior to commencing the first human clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit the results of the preclinical tests and preclinical literature, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Additional non-clinical studies may be required even after the IND is submitted.

The IND becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial by imposing a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development, as well as amendments to previously submitted clinical trials. Further, an independent IRB for each study site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial, its informed consent form and other communications to study subjects before the clinical trial commences at that site. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted, including any changes to the study plans. 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 subjects, or based on evolving business objectives or competitive climate. Some studies also include a data safety monitoring board, which receives special access to unblinded data during the clinical trial and may advise us to halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy.

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

In the case of a 505(b)(2) NDA, 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 relevance of the studies that were previously conducted by other sponsors to the drug that is the subject of the NDA.

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved. These so-called Phase 4, or post-market, studies may be made a condition 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.

Clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which includes the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial, and the review and approval of the study by an IRB. Investigators must also provide information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make specified 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 and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated and a statistical analysis plan. Information about some clinical trials, including a description of the trial and trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FFDCA. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and the IRB and more frequently if serious adverse events occur.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality 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.

505(b)(2) Approval Process

Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA, provides an alternate regulatory pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved drug products. Specifically, 505(b)(2) 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 upon the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved product that acts as the reference listed drug for purposes of a 505(b)(2) NDA. The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to support any changes from 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 505(b)(2) applicant.

Our current and anticipated product candidates are or will be based on already approved APIs in combination with a ligand. Accordingly, we have and expect to be able to continue to rely on information from studies previously conducted by the companies that obtained approval for drugs containing such APIs.

Orange Book Listing

Section 505 of the FFDCA 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 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from 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. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. 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, or ANDA. An ANDA provides 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. 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 can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug.

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA patents whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. These products may be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA.

Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify 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) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV certification. Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved 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. 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 will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, or, if permissible, are carved out.

If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the reference listed drug and the patent owner once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA holder or patent owner may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to 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 prevents the FDA from approving the application 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 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a Paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA 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. The applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain, or carves out, any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

Exclusivity

The FDA provides periods of regulatory exclusivity, which provides the holder of an approved NDA limited protection from new competition in the marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved drug for a period of three or five years following the FDA’s approval of the NDA. Five years of exclusivity are available to new chemical entities, or 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 exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review or approve an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted 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. Applicants may also seek to carve out certain drug labeling that is protected by exclusivity.

If a product is not eligible for the NCE exclusivity, it may be eligible for three years of exclusivity. Three-year exclusivity is 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 for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical trials, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence trials, was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted or sponsored by the applicant. This three-year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs for the condition of the new drug’s approval. As a general matter, three-year exclusivity does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

NDA Submission and Review by the FDA

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical and preclinical testing, among other items, the results of product development, including chemistry, manufacture and controls, non-clinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA, along with proposed labeling, as part of an NDA. The submission of an NDA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA. These user fees must be filed at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in some circumstances.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or 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 efficacy 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. 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 refer drugs which present difficult questions of safety, purity or potency to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel that typically includes clinicians and other experts who 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.

The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities, including contract manufacturers and subcontracts, 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 typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

Once the FDA receives an application, it has 60 days to review the NDA to determine if it is substantially complete to permit a substantive review, before it accepts the application for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. The timeline for the FDA to complete its review of a NDA may differ based on whether the application is a standard review or priority review application. The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that are intended to treat serious conditions and provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has set the review goal of ten months from the 60-day filing date to complete its initial review of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity, or NME, and make a decision on the application. For non-NME standard applications, the FDA has set the review goal of ten months from the submission date to complete its initial review and to make a decision on the application. For priority review applications, the FDA has set the review goal of reviewing NME NDAs within six months of the 60-day filing date and non-NME applications within six months of the submission date. Such deadlines are referred to as the PDUFA date. The PDUFA date is only a goal and the FDA does not always meet its PDUFA dates. The review process and the PDUFA date may also be extended if the FDA requests or the NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding the submission.

Once the FDA’s review of the application is complete, the FDA will issue either a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, or approval letter. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application is not ready for approval. 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, or other information or analyses in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The FDA has the goal of reviewing 90% of application resubmissions in either two or six months of the resubmission date, depending on the kind of resubmission (Class 1 or Class 2). 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 those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms. For example, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, as a condition of approval or following approval to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks and ensure safe use of the drug. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product, or impose additional post-marketing requirements, based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. 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, FDA notification and FDA review and approval. Further, should new safety information arise, additional testing, product labeling or FDA notification may be required.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed or may include contraindications, warnings or precautions in the product labeling, including a boxed warning. If the FDA requires a boxed warning, we would also be subject to specified promotional restrictions, such as the prohibition of reminder advertisements. The FDA also may not approve the inclusion of labeling claims necessary for successful marketing. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 post-marketing studies to monitor the effect of approved products and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including manufacturing, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising, promotion, drug shortage reporting, compliance with any post-approval requirements imposed as a conditional of approval such as Phase 4 clinical trials, REMS and surveillance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including adverse experiences.

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 also are continuing, annual human prescription drug program fee requirements for approved products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and to list their drug products, and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements, which impose procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other FDA regulatory requirements.

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented, or FDA notification. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and 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.

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 withdrawal of marketing approval, mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information or other limitations, imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program, among other consequences.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing and promotion of drugs. 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 uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. We, however, are prohibited from marketing or promoting drugs for uses outside of the approved labeling.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products, including samples, is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act also imposes obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing.

Failure to comply with any of the FDA’s requirements could result in significant adverse enforcement actions. These include a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as 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, cyber letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, refusals of 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 individual imprisonment. Any of these sanctions could result in adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy

The FDA has the authority to require a REMS to ensure the safe use of the drug. In determining whether a REMS is necessary, the FDA must consider the size of the population likely to use the drug, the seriousness of the disease or condition to be treated, the expected benefit of the drug, the duration of treatment, the seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the drug is a new molecule. If the FDA determines a REMS is necessary, the drug sponsor must develop the REMS program, which the FDA reviews and approves. A REMS may be required for a single drug or an entire class of drugs.

A REMS may be required to include various elements, including, but not limited to, a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate healthcare providers of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, elements to assure safe use, or ETASU, an implementation system, or other measures that the FDA deems necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under specified circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. In addition, the REMS must include a timetable to periodically assess the strategy. The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on a drug already on the market if the FDA determines, based on new safety information, that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.

APADAZ is currently subject to a REMS requirement, and under the APADAZ License Agreement, KVK is responsible for the maintenance of and all expenses and fees for the APADAZ REMS program.

DEA Regulation

Most of our products and product candidates, if approved, will be regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, or CSA, and the DEA’s implementing regulations, which establish registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA. These requirements are directly applicable to us and also applicable to our contract manufacturers and to distributors, prescribers and dispensers of our product candidates. The DEA regulates the handling of controlled substances through a closed chain of distribution. This control extends to the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.

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

● the drug has a high potential for abuse;

● abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

APADAZ is, and the FDA has recommended that AZSTARYS should be, listed as a Schedule II controlled substance under the CSA, and we expect that our other products and product candidates may be listed in the same manner, if approved. If our product candidates are ultimately listed as Schedule II controlled substances, then the importation of APIs for our product candidates, as well as the manufacture, shipping, storage, sales and use of the products, will be subject to a high degree of regulation. In addition to maintaining an importer and/or exporter registration, importers and exporters of controlled substances must obtain a permit for every import of a Schedule I or II substance and a narcotic substance in Schedule III, IV and V, as well as every export of a Schedule I or II substance and a narcotic substance in Schedule III and IV. For all other drugs in Schedule III, IV and V, importers and exporters must submit an import or export declaration. Schedule II drugs are subject to the strictest requirements for registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting. Also, distribution and dispensing of these drugs are highly regulated. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription. Electronic prescriptions may also be permissible depending on the state, so long as the prescription complies with the DEA’s requirements for electronic prescriptions.

Controlled substances classified in Schedule III, IV, and V are also subject to registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and security requirements. For example, Schedule III drug prescriptions must be authorized by a physician and may not be refilled more than six months after the date of the original prescription or more than five times. A prescription for controlled substances classified in Schedules III, IV, and V issued by a physician, may be communicated either orally, in writing or by facsimile to the pharmacies. Controlled substances that are also classified as narcotics, such as hydrocodone, oxycodone and hydromorphone, are also subject to additional DEA requirements, such as manufacturer reporting of the import of narcotic raw material.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities. Acquisition and distribution transactions must also be reported for Schedule I and II controlled substances, as well as Schedule III narcotic substances.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as cages, surveillance cameras and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA, for example distribution reports for Schedule I and II controlled substances, Schedule III substances that are narcotics, and other designated substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, special permits and notification requirements apply to imports and exports of narcotic drugs. To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance or Schedule III narcotic must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because AZSTARYS, APADAZ and our other current product candidates currently under development may be regulated as Schedule II controlled substances, they may be subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme. The DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much of a controlled substance may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. The limited aggregate amount of stimulants that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, which must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production and procurement quotas. We and our contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure any Schedule I or Schedule II substances for use in manufacturing of our product candidates. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments. Our, or our contract manufacturers’, quota of an active ingredient may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical trials. Any delay, limitation or refusal by the DEA in establishing our, or our contract manufacturers’, quota for controlled substances could delay or stop our clinical trials or product launches, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances. We and our contract manufacturers will be subject to state regulation on distribution of these products, including, for example, state requirements for licensures or registration.

Other Healthcare and Privacy Regulatory Frameworks

Our business activities, including but not limited to, research, sales, promotion, distribution, medical education and other activities are subject to regulation by numerous regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including potentially the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its various divisions, including the CMS and the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and state and local governments. Our business activities must comply with numerous healthcare laws as well as privacy and information security laws, including those described below. Compliance with government regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

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 reward, or in return for, the referral of an individual for, or purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of, any good, facility, item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. There are a number of 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, purchasing or recommending 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 does not make the conduct per se illegal under the federal 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. Additionally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and some other healthcare criminal fraud statutes, so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have violated those statutes. The ACA also provided that a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private citizens through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or 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, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor 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. Additionally, the ACA amended the intent requirement of some of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.

Additionally, the federal Open Payments program, created under Section 6002 of the ACA and its implementing regulations, require some manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with specified exceptions) to report annually information related to specified payments or other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually specified ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers will also be required to report information regarding payments and other transfers of value provided during the previous year to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by foreign, federal, state and local governments. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements on covered entities, including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, and their respective business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain individually identifiable health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity, and their covered subcontractors, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, U.S. state and foreign law equivalents may govern the privacy and security of personal information (including key-coded data and health information_, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements comply with applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. For example, the European General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third-party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. European data protection laws, such as the GDPR, also impose strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Economic Area, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Further, the GDPR authorizes the imposition of penalties (such as restrictions or prohibitions on personal data processing) and large fines for noncompliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. The GDPR has increased our responsibility and potential liability in relation to personal data that we process or control compared to prior EU law, including in clinical trials, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR and similar data protection laws, which could divert management’s attention and increase our cost of doing business. Likewise, we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards relating to privacy and data protection in the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, which has been characterized as the first “GDPR-like” privacy statute to be enacted in the United States. Although the CCPA exempts certain data processed in the context of clinical trials, the CCPA, to the extent applicable to our business and operations, may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to the personal information we maintain about California residents. In any event, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable information security or privacy laws in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal, state and foreign enforcement bodies have increased their scrutiny of biotechnology companies, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions, fines, penalties and settlements in the industry.

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 payor, including commercial insurers. Several states and local jurisdictions have also enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, or register their sales representatives, as well as prohibiting pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and prohibiting certain other sales and marketing practices.

Depending on the circumstances, failure to comply with these laws can result in significant penalties, including criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, debarment from government contracts, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, exclusion from government programs, refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business.

Healthcare Reform Measures

The United States 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 payors 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/or 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, in March 2010, the ACA was passed. The ACA has substantially changed health care financing by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for specified branded prescription drugs, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, expanded health care fraud and abuse laws, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated, imposed an inflation penalty on new formulations of drugs, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, expanded the 340B program which caps the price at which manufacturers can sell covered outpatient pharmaceuticals to specified hospitals, clinics and community health centers, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case, although it is unknown when a decision will be made. Further, although the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2030 with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In addition, in January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several categories of healthcare providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. As a result, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing the Trump administration’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. It is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing 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. It is also possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

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

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products to the extent we choose to develop or sell any products outside of the United States. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required to obtain FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2020, we employed 22 full-time employees. We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees are represented by a labor organization or under any collective bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based compensation awards in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Segments and Geographic Information

We view our operations and manage our business as one operating segment. See our financial statements for a discussion of revenues, operating loss, net loss and total assets. All of our assets were held in the United States for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa in October 2006 and were reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in May 2014. Our principal executive offices are located at 1180 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 103, Celebration, FL 34747 and our telephone number is (321) 939-3416.

Our website address is www.kempharm.com. The information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

You should carefully consider all the risk factors and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section of this report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and related notes, before investing in our common stock. If any of the following risks materialize, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be seriously harmed. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements because of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

If commercialization of AZSTARYS, APADAZ or any of our other product candidates, if approved, are not successful, or we experience significant delays in commercialization, our business will be harmed.

We currently generate no commercial revenue from the sale of any prodrugs and we may never be able to successfully commercialize a prodrug product. For instance, we entered into the KP415 License Agreement with Commave pursuant to which we granted an exclusive, worldwide license to Commave to develop, manufacture and commercialize AZSTARYS and KP484 worldwide. We cannot guarantee that Commave will be able to successfully develop, manufacture or commercialize AZSTARYS or KP484 or that we will ever receive any future payments under the KP415 License Agreement.

We have also entered into the APADAZ License Agreement with KVK pursuant to which we granted an exclusive license to KVK to commercialize APADAZ in the United States, but we cannot guarantee that KVK will be able to successfully commercialize APADAZ or that we will ever receive any payments under the APADAZ License Agreement from commercial sales of APADAZ.

We have invested substantially all our efforts and financial resources in the development of our proprietary LAT technology, the identification of potential product candidates and the development of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue from APADAZ under the APADAZ License Agreement, AZSTARYS under the KP415 License Agreement and generate revenue from any of our other product candidates will depend heavily on their successful development and eventual commercialization. The success of AZSTARYS, APADAZ and any of our other product candidates will depend on several factors, including:

● successful completion of preclinical studies and requisite clinical trials;

● successful completion and achievement of endpoints in our clinical trials;

● obtaining differentiating claims in the labels for our product candidates;

● maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements, including cGMPs;

● competing effectively with other therapies;

● obtaining and maintaining healthcare coverage and adequate reimbursement; and

Whether regulatory approval will be granted is unpredictable and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. If, following submission, our NDA for a product candidate is not accepted for substantive review or approval, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require that we conduct additional studies or clinical trials, provide additional data, take additional manufacturing steps or require other conditions before they will reconsider our application. If the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities require additional studies, clinical trials or data, we would incur increased costs and delays in the marketing approval process, which may require us to expend more resources than we have available. In addition, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not consider sufficient any additional required studies, clinical trials, data or information that we perform and complete or generate, or we may decide to abandon the program.

It is possible that none of our product candidates in clinical development or any of our future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval, even if we expend substantial time and resources seeking such approval.

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays, KVK could experience an inability to successfully commercialize APADAZ, Corium could experience an inability to successfully commercialize AZSTARYS or any of our other product candidates covered by the KP415 License Agreement, if approved, or we could experience an inability to successfully commercialize any of our other product candidates approved for marketing in the future, if any, which would harm our business.

Our research and development activities are focused on discovering and developing proprietary prodrugs, and we are taking an innovative approach to discovering and developing prodrugs, which may never lead to marketable prodrug products.

A key element of our strategy is to use our proprietary LAT technology to build a pipeline of prodrugs and progress product candidates based on these prodrugs through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of diseases and conditions. The scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop prodrugs are relatively new. As our scientific efforts are primarily focused on discovering novel prodrugs with new molecular structures, the evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in a pipeline of prodrug product candidates, we may not be able to develop those product candidates into prodrugs that are bioequivalent, safe and effective and that have commercially significant improvements over already approved drugs. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, for reasons including being shown to have harmful side effects, a lack of efficacy, or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be prodrugs that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If APADAZ and AZSTARYS are not successfully commercialized under our APADAZ License Agreement or KP415 License Agreement and we do not successfully develop and commercialize any of our other product candidates based upon our proprietary LAT technology, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates, or the approved labels are not sufficiently differentiated from other competing products, we will not be able to commercialize them and our ability to generate revenue or profits or to raise future capital could be limited.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, sale, marketing, advertising and promotion, pricing, export, import and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and other countries, which regulations differ from country to country and change over time. We are not permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA, or in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approvals in such countries. In the United States, the FDA generally requires the completion of non-clinical testing and clinical trials of each drug to establish its safety and efficacy and extensive pharmaceutical development to ensure its quality and other factors before an NDA is approved. Regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions impose similar requirements. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage result in the submission of an NDA to the FDA and even fewer are approved for commercialization.

Even if regulatory approval is obtained, subsequent safety, efficacy, quality or other issues can result in a product approval being suspended or withdrawn, or the approved label for any approved product may not be sufficiently differentiated from other competing products to support market adoption thereof. On March 2, 2021, we announced that the FDA approved the NDA for AZSTARYS, a once-daily product for the treatment of ADHD in patients ranging from six years and older. In February 2018, we announced that the FDA approved the NDA for APADAZ for the short-term (no more than 14 days) management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. Even with the regulatory approval of AZSTARYS and APADAZ by the FDA, we cannot guarantee that the FDA will approve any of our other product candidates for commercial sale or approve any proposed label we may have for any such product candidate. If our development efforts for our product candidates, including regulatory approval, are not successful for their planned indications or are delayed, or if adequate demand for our product candidates that are approved for marketing, if any, is not generated, our business will be harmed.

The success of our product candidates will depend on the receipt and maintenance of regulatory approval and the issuance and maintenance of such approval is uncertain and subject to a number of risks, including the following:

● the dosing in a particular clinical trial may not be at an optimal level;

We have only limited experience in filing the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and have relied, and expect to continue to rely, on consultants and third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, with expertise in this area to assist us in this process. Securing FDA approval requires the submission of extensive non-clinical and clinical data, information about product manufacturing processes and inspection of facilities and supporting information to the FDA for each therapeutic indication to establish a product candidate’s safety and efficacy for each indication and manufacturing quality. Additionally, we cannot guarantee that regulators will agree with our assessment of the results of the clinical trials we have conducted or that any future trials will be successful.

Any product candidates we develop may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining regulatory approval or prevent or limit commercial use with respect to one or all intended indications.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive, often takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon, among other things, the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, the jurisdiction in which regulatory approval is sought and the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Changes in the regulatory approval policy during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for a submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application or may result in future withdrawal of approval. Regulatory approval obtained in one jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that a product candidate will receive regulatory approval in all jurisdictions in which we may seek approval, but the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to seek approval in a different jurisdiction. Failure to obtain regulatory marketing approval of our product candidates in any indication will prevent us from commercializing those product candidates for that indication, and our ability to generate revenue will be impaired.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs and biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 the FDA announced its intention to postpone most foreign and domestic inspections of manufacturing facilities and products, and subsequently, in July 2020, restarted routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities on a risk-based basis. Regulatory authorities outside the United States have adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we, subject to the approval of Commave, or Commave themselves attempt to rely on Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the FDA does not conclude that our product candidates are sufficiently bioequivalent, or have comparable bioavailability, to approved drugs, or if the FDA does not allow us or Commave to pursue the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway as anticipated, the approval pathway for our product candidates will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and the FDA may not ultimately approve our product candidates.

A key element of our strategy is to seek FDA approval for most of our product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, otherwise known as the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway with any NDA submitted thereunder a 505(b)(2) NDA, where possible. The 505(b)(2) NDA pathway 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. Such reliance is typically predicated on a showing of bioequivalence or comparable bioavailability to an approved drug.

If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway as anticipated, or if we cannot demonstrate bioequivalence or comparable bioavailability of our product candidates to approved products, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. Moreover, even if the FDA does allow us to pursue the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, depending on the product candidate, we may still need to conduct additional clinical trials, including clinical trials to assess product safety or efficacy. For instance, subject to Commave approval, we currently plan on relying on the 505(b)(2) pathway for any NDA submitted for KP484. However, we do not anticipate that the 505(b)(2) pathway will be available for every product candidate. For instance, it is possible we will only be permitted to utilize the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway for either AZSTARYS or KP484, but not both. We utilized the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway for the AZSTARYS NDA which was approved on March 2, 2021. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates, and complications and risks associated with our product candidates, would likely substantially increase.

Moreover, our inability to pursue the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which could hurt our competitive position and our business prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization on a timely basis, if at all. Other companies may achieve product approval of similar products before we do, which would delay our ability to obtain product approval, expose us to greater competition, and would require that we seek approval via alternative pathways, such as an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, which is used for the development of generic drug products.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of several products by the FDA under 505(b)(2) over the last few years, pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its policies and practices with respect to 505(b)(2) regulatory approvals, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under 505(b)(2).

Even if our product candidates are approved under 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed, including more limited subject populations than we request, may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a boxed warning, may be subject to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing clinical trials, testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products, or other post-market requirements, such as a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. The FDA also may not approve a product candidate with a label that includes the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Based upon currently approved products, we anticipate that we will be required to conduct Phase 4 studies and to implement a REMS and will have a boxed warning for at least some of our product candidates, including APADAZ.

The FDA may determine that any NDA we may submit under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for any of our product candidates in the future is not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review.

If we were to submit an NDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory for any of our product candidates, within 60 days of the agency’s receipt of our NDA, the FDA will make a threshold determination of whether the NDA is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. This 60-day review period is referred to as the filing review. If the NDA is sufficiently complete, the FDA will file the NDA. If the agency refuses to file the NDA, it will notify us and state the reason(s) for the refusal. The FDA may refuse to file our NDA for various reasons, including but not limited to, if:

In its procedures, the FDA has stated that it could find an NDA submitted under the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway incomplete and refuse to file it if the NDA, among other reasons:

Additionally, the FDA will refuse to file an NDA if an approved drug with the same active moiety is entitled to five years of exclusivity, unless the exclusivity period has elapsed, or unless four years of the five-year period have elapsed, and the NDA contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. 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 bond) or other noncovalent derivative (such as a complex, chelate, or clathrate) of the molecule, responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance.

If the FDA refuses to file an NDA submitted by us, we may amend the NDA and resubmit it. In such a case, the FDA will again review the NDA and determine whether it may be filed. There can be no assurance that the FDA will file any NDA submitted by us in the future. If the agency refuses to file an NDA, we will need to address the deficiencies cited by the FDA, which could substantially delay the review process.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

The risk of failure for our product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our current product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans and will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Interpretation of results from early, usually smaller, studies that suggest positive trends in some subjects, requires caution. Results from later stages of clinical trials enrolling more subjects may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results or otherwise fail to be consistent with the results of earlier trials of the same product candidates. Later clinical trial results may not replicate earlier clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including differences in trial design, different trial endpoints, or lack of trial endpoints in exploratory studies, subject population, number of subjects, subject selection criteria, trial duration, drug dosage and formulation and lack of statistical power in the earlier studies. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

● be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates;

● not obtain marketing approval at all;

● have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval.

Our prodrug development costs may also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. Additionally, if we do not successfully develop any product candidates subject to the KP415 License Agreement, we may not be eligible to receive any future payments under the KP415 License Agreement. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

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

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, may be altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes may not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Our decision to seek approval of our product candidates under the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, if available, may increase the risk that patent infringement suits are filed against us, which would delay the FDA’s approval of such product candidates.

Regarding any NDA that we may submit under the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, if there are patents that claim the approved drug contained in our product candidates and referenced in our 505(b)(2) NDA, we must certify to the FDA and notify the patent holder that any patents listed for the approved drug in the FDA’s Orange Book publication are invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of our prodrug. If a patent infringement lawsuit is filed against us within 45 days of its receipt of notice of our certification, the FDA is automatically prevented from approving our 505(b)(2) NDA until the earliest of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a court decision in the infringement case that is favorable to us, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. Such actions are routinely filed by patent owners. Accordingly, we may invest considerable time and expense in the development of our product candidates only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before our product candidates may be commercialized. We may not be successful in defending any patent infringement claim. Even if we are found not to infringe, or a plaintiff’s patent claims are found invalid or unenforceable, defending any such infringement claim would be expensive and time-consuming, and would delay launch of our product candidates and distract management from their normal responsibilities.

We may not be successful in our efforts to develop a prodrug-based product that might allow us to seek a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher.

The FDA has awarded rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers to sponsors of drug candidates to treat rare pediatric disease, if the treatment sponsors apply for this designation and meet certain criteria. Under this program, upon the approval of a qualifying NDA, for the treatment of a rare pediatric disease, the sponsor of such an application would be eligible for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher that can be used to obtain priority review for a subsequent NDA. The priority review voucher may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times.

We previously announced a technology licensing agreement with Genco Sciences, LLC to develop prodrug-based therapy for potential rare pediatric indications of Tourette’s Syndrome with ADHD. We cannot guarantee that we will be successful in this effort to develop such a prodrug-based therapy. Additionally, we cannot guarantee that the FDA would grant us a rare pediatric disease designation for such a prodrug-based product candidate. Even if the FDA grants us a rare pediatric disease designation for one of our prodrug-based product candidates, designation of a drug as a drug for a rare pediatric disease does not guarantee that an NDA for such drug will meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher at the time the application is approved.

AZSTARYS, APADAZ and certain of our other product candidates contain controlled substances, the manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation, prescribing and distribution of which are subject to regulation by the DEA.

Before we can commercialize any of our products or product candidates, if approved, the DEA will need to determine the controlled substance schedule, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA. This may be a lengthy process that could delay our marketing of a product candidate and could potentially diminish any regulatory exclusivity periods for which we may be eligible. The FDA has recommended that AZSTARYS be regulated as a "controlled substance" as defined in the CSA. For APADAZ, the DEA has determined it to be a Schedule II drug. We expect that most of our other product candidates, including KP484 and KP879, if approved, will be regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the CSA and the implementing regulations of the DEA, which establish registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA. These requirements are applicable to us, to our contract manufacturers and to distributors, prescribers and dispensers of our product candidates. The DEA regulates the handling of controlled substances through a closed chain of distribution. This control extends to the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging, in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce. A number of states and foreign countries also independently regulate these drugs as controlled substances.

● the drug has a high potential for abuse;

● abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

We expect that most of our current product candidates may be listed by the DEA as Schedule II controlled substances under the CSA. If our product candidates are listed as Schedule II controlled substances, then the importation of the APIs for our product candidates, as well as the manufacture, shipping, storage, sales and use of the products, will be subject to a high degree of regulation. In addition to maintaining an importer and/or exporter registration, importers and exporters of controlled substances must obtain a permit for every import of a Schedule I or II substance and a narcotic substance in Schedule III, IV and V, as well as every export of a Schedule I or II substance and a narcotic substance in Schedule III and IV. For all other drugs in Schedule III, IV and V, importers and exporters must submit an import or export declaration. Schedule II drugs are subject to the strictest requirements for registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting. Also, distribution and dispensing of these drugs are highly regulated. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription. Electronic prescriptions may also be permissible depending on the state, so long as the prescription complies with the DEA’s requirements for electronic prescriptions.

Controlled substances classified in Schedule III, IV, and V are also subject to registration, recordkeeping, reporting and security requirements. For example, Schedule III drug prescriptions must be authorized by a physician and may not be refilled more than six months after the date of the original prescription or more than five times. A prescription for controlled substances classified in Schedules III, IV and V issued by a physician, may be communicated either orally, in writing or by facsimile to the pharmacies. Controlled substances that are also classified as narcotics, such as hydrocodone, oxycodone and hydromorphone, are also subject to additional DEA requirements, such as manufacturer reporting of the import of narcotic raw material.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Because most of our product candidates may be regulated as Schedule II controlled substances, they may be subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme. The DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much of a controlled substance may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. Manufacturers of Schedule I and II controlled substances are required to apply for quotas on an annual basis. If we or our contract manufacturers or suppliers do not obtain a sufficient quota from the DEA, we may not be able to obtain sufficient quantities of these controlled substances in order to complete our clinical trials or meet commercial demand, if our product candidates are approved for marketing.

Because of their restrictive nature, these laws and regulations could limit commercialization of our product candidates containing controlled substances. States may also have their own controlled substance laws that may further restrict and regulate controlled substances. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could also result in withdrawal of our DEA registrations, disruption in manufacturing and distribution activities, consent decrees, criminal and civil penalties and state actions, among other consequences.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of subjects in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

ZVRA US Equity

ZVRA · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

ZVRA US Equity☆

ZVRA · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

ZVRA US Equity