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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and "emerging“emerging growth company"company” in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s shares of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 20202021 (which is the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter) based upon the closing market price of such stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market on that date was approximately $112.1$183.5 million. Shares of common stock held by each officer and directors and by each person known to be the registrant who owned 10% or more of the outstanding common stock have been excluded in that such person may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 4, 2021,February 28, 2022, there were 89,104,816112,794,203 outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share.

This report and the information incorporated herein by reference contain forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Although our forward-looking statements reflect the good faith judgment of our management, these statements can only be based on facts and factors currently known by us. Consequently, forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results and outcomes may differ materially from results and outcomes discussed in the forward-looking statements.

 

 

The cautionary statements made in this report are intended to be applicable to all related forward-looking statements wherever they may appear in this report. We urge you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL RISK FACTORS

This summary briefly states the principal risks and uncertainties facing our business that could affect our common stock, which are only a select portion of those risks. A more complete statement of those risks and uncertainties is set forth under Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this annual report. This summary is qualified in its entirety by that more complete statement. You should carefully read the entire “Risk Factors” section when considering the risks and uncertainties as part of your evaluation of our business.

CerecorAvalo Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”, “Cerecor”“Avalo” or “we”) is a biopharmaceuticalleading clinical-stage precision medicine company focused on becoming a leaderthat discovers, develops, and commercializes targeted therapeutics for patients with significant unmet clinical need in developmentimmunology and commercialization of treatments for rare and orphangenetic diseases. The Company is advancing its clinical-stage pipelinehas built a diverse portfolio of innovative therapies that address unmet patient needs within rareto deliver meaningful medical impact for patients in urgent need. Avalo’s clinical candidates commonly have a proven mechanistic rationale, biomarkers and/or an established proof-of-concept to expedite and orphan diseases.increase the probability of success.

Our strategy for increasing stockholder value includes:

The following chart summarizes key information about our clinical-stage pipeline and is followed by further detail for each program, including an overview, competition, licenses (if applicable), and market, data, and patent exclusivity/intellectual property:

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for the technology and know-how upon which our products are based, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights.

We hold ownership, trademark rights and/or exclusivity to develop and commercialize our products and product candidates covered by patents and patent applications. Our portfolio of patents includes patents or patent applications with claims directed to compositions of matter, including compounds, pharmaceutical formulations, methods of use, methods of manufacturing the compounds, or a combination of these claims. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of the use of a compound for a specific indication, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. Similar extensions to patent term may be available in other countries for particular patents in Cerecor’sour portfolio.

We plan to augment our portfolio of compounds by focusing on the development (when possible) of new chemical entities (“NCEs”), or biologics, which have not previously received FDA approval. Upon approval by the FDA, NCEs are entitled to market and data exclusivity in the United States with respect to generic drug competition for a period of five years from the date of FDA approval, even if the related patents have expired. Similarly, upon approval by the FDA, biologics are entitled to reference product exclusivity for a period of twelve years from the date of FDA approval, even if the related patents have expired.

Intellectual Property for specific pipeline assets, if applicable, are discussed above within the “Product Pipeline“Pipeline Assets” section.

We face, and will continue to face, intense competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as numerous academic and research institutions and governmental agencies, both in the United States and abroad. We compete, or will compete, with existing and new products being developed by our competitors. Some of these competitors are pursuing the development of pharmaceuticals that target the same diseases and conditions that our research and development programs target. Some of these competitors also have greater resources and more experience than we do in regulatory development and marketing.

Competition for specific pipeline assets are discussed above within the “Product Pipeline“Pipeline Assets” section.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We rely on contract manufacturing organizations to produce our drug candidates in accordance with applicable provisions of the FDA’s current good manufacturing practices regulations (“cGMP”) for use in our clinical studies. The manufacture of pharmaceuticals is subject to extensive good manufacturing practice (“GMP”) regulations, which impose various procedural and documentation requirements and govern all areas of record keeping, production processes and controls, personnel and quality control.

For our clinical stage pipeline assets, we may retain or partner in the United States with third parties on the commercialization rights and develop sales and marketing capabilities when needed. WeIf we develop our own United States sales force we may complement our own sales forceit with co‑promotion agreements with partners in and outside the United States. We may also seek to commercialize any of our approved products outside of the United States and may do so either through an expansion of our sales force or through collaboration with third parties.

Other competitors may have a variety of drugs in development or may be awaiting FDA approval that could reach the market and become established before we have a product to sell. Our competitors may also develop alternative therapies that could further limit the market for any drugs that we may develop. Many of our competitors are using technologies or methods different or

similar to ours to identify and validate drug targets and to discover novel small compound drugs. Many of our competitors and their collaborators have significantly greater experience than we do in the following:

In addition, many of our competitors and their collaborators have substantially greater advantages in the following areas:

Smaller companies might also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through proprietary research discoveries and collaborative arrangements with large pharmaceutical and established biotechnology companies. Many of our competitors have products that have been approved or are in advanced development. We face competition from other companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations for collaborative arrangements with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientific and management personnel and for licenses to additional technologies. Our competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, may succeed in developing technologies or drugs that are more effective, safer, and more affordable or more easily administered than ours and may achieve patent protection or commercialize drugs sooner than us. Developments by others may render our product candidates or our technologies obsolete. Our failure to compete effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export, pricing, and government contracting related to pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, or other actions, such as the FDA’s delay in review of or refusal to approve a pending NDA or BLA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or study termination, issuance of Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, mandated modifications to promotional materials or issuance of corrective information, requests for product recalls, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow product import or export, total or partial suspension of or restriction of or imposition of other requirements relating to production or distribution, injunctions, fines, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, FDA debarment, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

Obtaining FDA marketing approval for new products may take many years and require the expenditure of substantial financial resources. In order for the FDA to determine that a product is safe and effective for the proposed indication, the product must first undergo testing in animals (nonclinical studies). The data generated from nonclinical studies is used to support the filing of an Investigational New Drug Application (an “IND”) under which human studies are conducted. Human testing is generally conducted under an Investigational New Drug ApplicationIND in three phases following GCPgood clinical practice (“GCP”) guidelines:

In addition to human testing, the manufacturing process of the potential product must be developed in accordance with GMP regulations. Prior to the approval of a new product, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the proposed drug product is manufactured to ensure GMP compliance.

The cumulative safety and efficacy data generated from the clinical trials described above, chemistry, manufacturing and control (“CMC”) information, nonclinical study data and proposed labeling are used as the basis to support approval of a marketing application (NDA or BLA) to the FDA. The preparation of an NDA or BLA requires the expenditure of substantial funds and the commitment of substantial resources. Additionally, in most cases, the submission of an NDA or BLA is subject to a substantial application user fee paid at the time of submission. The FDA conducts a preliminary administrative review upon receipt of the NDA or BLA submission. The FDA then either accepts the NDA or BLA for filing and commences its technical review or it refuses to accept the filing with the filer then having to address the deficiencies cited by the FDA and re-file the NDA or BLA again.

After evaluating the NDA or BLA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter 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, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The FDA has a review goal of completing its review of 90% of resubmissions within two or six months after receipt, depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this 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 development and approval of new drugs requires substantial time, effort and financial resources. Data obtained from the development program are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations. These instances may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all. We may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing our products. The FDA may limit the indications for use or place other conditions on any approvals that could restrict the commercial application of the products.product.

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, manufacturing, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, and reporting of adverse experiences with the product and drug shortages. During the approval process, the FDA and the sponsor may agree that specific studies or clinical trials should be conducted as post-marketing commitments, but they are not required. The FDA may also impose post-marketing requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance, to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product becomes available in the market.

In addition to FDA regulations governing the marketing of pharmaceutical products, there are various other state and federal laws that may restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These include the following:

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws, regulations, rules or policies or any other law or governmental regulation, or if interpretations of the foregoing change, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post‑marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti‑fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals. This is currently not applicable as none of our products are currently sold in a foreign country.

The commercial success of our product candidates and our ability to commercialize any approved product candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third‑party payers provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our therapeutic product candidates. In the United States, the European Union and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third‑party payers are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage, attempting to limit reimbursement levels or regulate the price of drugs and other medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative

agencies and federally funded hospitals and clinics and mandatory rebates on retail pharmacy prescriptions paid by Medicaid and Tricare. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government programs may result in lower reimbursement for our product candidates or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage. Moreover, the Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payers and other governmental payers develop their coverage and reimbursement policies.

In addition, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and utilization, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, competition within therapeutic classes, availability of generic equivalents, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general. The cost containment measures that healthcare payers and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform implemented in the future could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third‑party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part.

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments also have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs.

In recent years, Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement levels for drugs administered by physicians. CMS, the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, also has authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions for some drugs. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products. While Medicare regulations apply only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from federal legislation or regulation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “Affordable Care Act”), substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act iswas intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms. Among other things, the Affordable Care Act expanded manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum Medicaid rebate for both branded and generic drugs, expanded the 340B program, and revised the definition of AMP, which could increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates manufacturers are required to pay to states. The legislation also extended Medicaid drug rebates, previously due only on fee-for-service Medicaid utilization, to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products that is intended to increase the amount of rebates due on those drugs. On February 1, 2016, CMS issued final regulations to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the Affordable Care Act. These regulations became effective on April 1, 2016. Since that time,its passage, there have been significant ongoing efforts to modify or eliminate the Affordable Care Act.

Further legislative and regulatory changes under the Affordable Care Act remain possible, although the new Administration under President Biden has signaled that it plans to build on the Affordable Care Act and expand the number of people who are eligible for subsidies under it.President Biden indicated that he intends to use executive orders to undo changes to the Affordable Care Act made by the Trump administration and would advocate for legislation to build on the Affordable Care Act. It is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take, and how or whether it may affect our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, changes allowing the federal government to directly negotiate drug prices and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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.

We expect that additional federal, state and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

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

drug product, other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is required to provide a certification to the FDA in the product application concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the applicant is not seeking approval. Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except when the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent or if the listed patent is a patented method of use for which approval is not being sought. A certification that the proposed product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called 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 the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

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 NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of notice of the

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five‑year period of non‑patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non‑infringement.

The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA, if new clinical investigations other than bioavailability studies that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three‑year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three‑year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, 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 effectiveness.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 ("BPCIA"(“BPCIA”), which was enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be "biosimilar"“biosimilar” or "interchangeable"“interchangeable” with an FDA-licensed reference biological product via an approved BLA. Biosimilarity to an approved reference product requires that there be no differences in conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, and strength, and no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Biosimilarity is demonstrated in steps beginning with rigorous analytical studies or "fingerprinting"“fingerprinting”, in vitro studies, in vivo animal studies, and generally at least one clinical study, absent a waiver from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The biosimilarity exercise tests the hypothesis that the investigational product and the reference product are the same. If at any

point in the stepwise biosimilarity process a significant difference is observed, then the products are not biosimilar, and the product will have to developed and approved using a traditional NDA or BLA. In order to meet the higher hurdle of interchangeability, a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product, and for a product that is administered more than once, that the risk of switching between the reference product and biosimilar product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being evaluated by the FDA.

Upon approval of a BLA, the biologic is listed in the Purple Book along with the date it was licensed; whether the biological product licensed has been determined by the FDA to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with a reference biological product (an already-licensed FDA biological product) and the date of expiration of applicable exclusivity. Under the BPCIA, a reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. This 12 year12-year period includes 4 years before the FDA may accept for filing an application for a biologic that references a branded (reference) product.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non‑patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non‑patent exclusivity period described above. This six‑month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents.

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

Under Section 529 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”),FDCA, the FDA will award priority review vouchersPRVs to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. Under this program, a sponsor who receives an approval for a drug or biologic for a rare pediatric disease"disease may qualify for a PRV that can be redeemed to receive a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. The PRV may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Under the PRV program, any drug that is granted RPDD by September 30, 2024 and receives approval by September 20, 2026 may qualify for a PRV.

In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding drug development and commercialization. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

To obtain a marketing authorization of a drug in the European Union, we may submit marketing authorization applications (“MAAs”) either under the so‑called centralized or national authorization procedures.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”)EMA that is valid in all European Union member states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee of Medicinal Products for Human Use ("CHMP"(“CHMP”). Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop‑clocks.

There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several European Union countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

In the European Union, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten‑year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

    

As of December 31, 2020,2021, we had 32forty-four employees, thirtyforty-two of whom are full-time oneand two of whom is part-time and nineteenare part-time. Twenty-eight of whomour employees were primarily engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

We will need to raise capital to continue product development. Our capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

We might never progress to the point where we have commercially successful product sales or other revenue sufficient to sustain operations. Accordingly, we may seek to raise these funds through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, credit facilities, partnering or other corporate collaborations and licensing arrangements. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of opportunities, develop products and technologies, and otherwise respond to competitive pressures could be significantly delayed or limited, and we might need to downsize or halt our operations.

At December 31, 2020,2021, we had $18.9$54.6 million in cash and cash equivalents and $15.2$19.9 million in current liabilities. Accordingly, we might not currently have sufficient funds to finance our continuing operations beyond the short term or to further advance any of our product candidates.

As a research and development company, our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time‑consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance our product candidates into clinical trials or obtain and advance additional product candidates. Circumstances may cause us to consume capital more rapidly than we currently anticipate. We may need to raise additional funds or otherwise obtain funding through collaborations if we choose to initiate additional clinical trials for product candidates.

Additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from our day‑to‑day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we do not raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may need to:

Our future funding requirements, both short and long term, will depend on many factors, including:

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate an adequate effect or acceptable safety profile, gain marketing approval and become commercially viable. Historically, we financed our operations primarily through public and private equity offerings and convertible debt.offerings. We incurred a net loss of $63.5$84.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2020.2021. As of December 31, 2020,2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $177.8$262.2 million. Substantially all of our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development program and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations.

We expect to continue to incur losses in the future and we might never achieve profitability on an annual basis. We may also encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. Our future profitability will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We have a significant amount of gross net operating losses (“NOLs”) for federal and state purposes. The NOLs accumulated through the end of 2017 will begin to expire in 2031. Unused NOLs for the current tax year and prior tax years will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. Unused NOLs generated after December 31, 2017, will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but will be only deductible to the extent of 80% of current year taxable income in any given year. In addition, both the deductibility of current and future unused NOL carryovers may be subject to limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”).IRC. Sections 382 and 383 of the IRC subject the future utilization of NOLs and certain other tax attributes, such as research and experimental tax credits, to an annual limitation in the event of certain ownership changes. In general, an “ownership change” is defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in equity ownership over a three-year period).

Our quarterly and annual operating results historically have fluctuated and are likely to continue to fluctuate depending on several factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, our quarterly and annual results are difficult to predict prior to the end of the quarter or year, and we may be unable to confirm or adjust expectations with respect to our operating results for a particular period until that period has closed. AnyIn the event we provide cash projections or other guidance, any failure to meet our quarterlysuch targets or annual revenue or earnings targetsfailure to meet the expectations of analysts could adversely impact the market price of our securities. Therefore, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the identification and preclinical and clinical development of product candidates. Our ability to increase product revenues will depend on our ability to advance our clinical product candidates towards approval and our preclinical product candidates into clinical development. The outcome of preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials might not predict the success of future clinical trials. Preclinical data and clinical trial data may be susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and early clinical trials have nonetheless failed in later clinical development. Our inability to successfully complete development of our product candidates could result in additional costs to us relating to product development and obtaining marketing approval and impair our ability to generate product revenues and commercialization and sales milestone payments and royalties on product sales.

Before obtaining required approvals from regulatory authorities for the sale of future product candidates, we alone, or with a partner, must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure

We do not know whether any clinical trials will begin as planned, whether the design will be revised prior to or during conduct of the study, completed on schedule or conducted at all. Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing. Significant 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, which would impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Events which may result in a delay or unsuccessful completion of clinical development include:

Any inability by us or our partners to timely complete clinical development could result in additional costs to us relating to product development and obtaining marketing approval and impair our ability to generate product revenues and commercialization and sales milestone payments and royalties on product sales.

Identifying and qualifying subjects to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates, and retaining the subjects once qualified, is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit appropriate subjects to participate in testing our product candidates as well as completion of required follow‑up periods. If subjects are unwilling to

Difficulty or delays in patient recruitment into our trials could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether. Many factors affect subject enrollment, including:

We rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials, and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance. If we are unable to enroll sufficient subjects in our clinical trials, if enrollment is slower than we anticipate, or if our clinical trials require more subjects than we anticipate, our clinical trials may be delayed or might not be completed. If we experience delays in our clinical trials, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our lead product candidates or our other product candidates.

Furthermore, because several of our programs are focused on the treatment of patients with rare orphan or ultra‑orphangenetic diseases, our ability to enroll eligible patients in these trials may be limited or slower than we anticipate in light of the small patient populations involved and the specific age range required for treatment eligibility in some indications. In addition, our potential competitors, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, may seek to develop competing therapies, which would further limit the small patient pool available for our studies.

Completion of orphan clinical trials may take considerably more time than other trials, sometimes years, depending on factors such as type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a product candidate. As a result of the uncertainties described above, there can be no assurance that we will meet timelines that we establish for any of our rare and orphan clinical trials.

The success of our business depends in part upon our ability to identify and validate new therapeutic targets and identify, develop and commercialize therapeutics, which we may develop ourselves, in‑license or acquire from others. Research programs designed to identify product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. Our research efforts may initially show promise in identifying potential therapeutic targets or candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

Additionally, we may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects and could potentially cause us to cease operations.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to issue a clinical hold and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.

Should our clinical studies of our product candidates reveal undesirable side effects, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities as well as IRBs could order us to suspend or cease clinical trials. The FDA or comparable regulatory authorities could also deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications or only for a limited indication or patient population or could require label warnings, contraindications or precautions, including black box warnings, post‑market studies, testing and surveillance programs or other conditions including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a costly risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”). Drug‑related side effects could affect subject recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others (regulatory agencies, consumers, etc.) later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate or otherwise materially harm the commercial prospects for the product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late‑stage clinical trials towards regulatory approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical

Similarly, changes in the location of manufacturing or addition of manufacturing facilities may increase our costs and require additional studies and FDA approval. This may require us to ensure that the new facility meets all applicable regulatory requirements, is adequately validated and qualified, and to conduct additional studies of product candidates manufactured at the new location. Any of the above 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 regulatory approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any future product candidates from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources. Smaller and early‑stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our competitors may obtain marketing approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

There are numerous currently approved therapies for treating the pediatric conditions our products address and, consequently, competition in these markets is intense. Many of these approved drugs are well established therapies or products and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third‑party payors. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection and non‑patent regulatory exclusivity, and others are available on a generic basis.

Insurers and other third‑party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that any of our product candidates, if approved, would be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products, but, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. This may make it difficult for us to differentiate our product from currently approved therapies, which may adversely impact our business strategy. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow, and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

Even if our product candidates have or receive marketing approval, they might not gain adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients and others in the medical community. Our commercial success also depends on coverage and adequate

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, third‑party payors and patients, we might not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate and might not become or remain profitable.

The time required to obtain approval to market new drugs by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of preclinical studies and clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval. Moreover, the filing of an NDA or biologics license application (“BLA”)BLA for products that have not been granted ODD requires a payment of a significant application fee under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act upon submission. Any subsequent clinical data submissions to the NDA or BLA (i.e., for new indications) are also assessed an application fee. The filing of an NDA or BLA for our product candidates that do not have ODD may be delayed due to our lack of financial resources to pay such user fee.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval from the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority for many reasons, including:

The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may require more information, including additional preclinical or clinical studies to support approval, which may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development program. This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results, may result in our failing to obtain approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any or all of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a black‑box warning, may grant approval with a requirement of costly post‑marketing clinical trials or other post‑market requirements, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or

desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, the regulatory agencies might not

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation (“RPDD”)RPDD is granted by the FDA is granted in the case of serious or life‑threatening diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States in which the serious or life‑threatening manifestations are primarily in individuals 18 years of age and younger. The designation provides regulatory incentivesUpon request, the FDA has the authority to grant a Rare Pediatric Disease PRV for companiesdrug and biologic applications approved to develop and market therapies thatprevent or treat these conditions. The sponsor of a drug for a rare pediatric disease may beand deemed eligible for a priority review, voucher (“PRV”) upon approval of the drug that can be used to obtain a priority review of a subsequent marketing application. among other criteria.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 was signed into law on December 27, 2020. As part of this legislation, the FDA Rare Pediatric Disease PRVDesignation Program has been extended through 2024, permitting the issuance of PRVs through September 30, 2024 for drugs and biologics receiving FDA approval before September 30, 2026. CERC-006, 801, 802AVTX-006, AVTX-801, AVTX-802 and 803AVTX-803 are each potentially eligible for a PRV upon FDA approval of each drug, but there is no guarantee that wea voucher(s) will receive such voucher(s).be granted. Moreover, any PRV may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Although PRVs may be sold or transferred to third parties, there is no guarantee that we will be able to realize any value if we receive and were to sell a PRV.

Even if we obtain marketing approval for a product candidate, we would be subject to ongoing requirements by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities governing the manufacture, quality control, further development, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, import, export, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and annual reporting of safety and other post‑market information. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities will continue to closely monitor the safety profile of any product even after approval. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities become aware of new safety information after approval of any of our product candidates, they may withdraw approval, require labeling changes or establishment of

a REMS or similar strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post‑approval studies or post‑market surveillance. In addition, any marketing approvals that we

In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities, including contracted facilities, are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with GMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, we may be subject to reporting obligations and a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility, us, or our suppliers, including requesting recalls or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we, our product candidates, our contractors, the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates or others working on our behalf fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, either before or after marketing approval, a regulatory agency may:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to continue our development programs, commercialize our products and generate revenue.

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. While the FDA does not restrict physicians from prescribing approved drugs for uses outside of the drugs’ approved labeling, known as off‑label use, pharmaceutical manufacturers are strictly prohibited from promoting and marketing their products for such uses. Violations, including promotion of our products for off‑label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries, investigations, civil and criminal sanctions by the government, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Additionally, comparable foreign regulatory authorities will heavily scrutinize advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States.

In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products for off‑label uses can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, deferred prosecution agreements, and corporate integrity agreements with governmental authorities that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. These false claims statutes include the federal civil False Claims Act, which allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government decides to intervene and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in any fines or settlement funds. If the government does not intervene, the individual may proceed on his or her own. Since 2004, these False Claims Act lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, such as settlements regarding certain sales practices promoting off‑label drug uses involving fines that are as much as $3.0$3 billion. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a pharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not

successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The FDA’s policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay marketing approval, and the sale and promotion of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

The majority of states require manufacturer and/or wholesaler licenses for the sale and distribution of drugs into that state. The application process is complicated, time consuming, costly and requires dedicated personnel or a third party to oversee and manage. If we are delayed in obtaining these state licenses, or denied the licenses, even with FDA approval, we would not be able to sell or ship product into that state which would adversely affect our sales and revenues.

In order to market and sell our products in other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, we must secure product reimbursement approvals before regulatory authorities will approve the product for sale in that country. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. Further, clinical trials conducted in one country might not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected. We might not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. Approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. Also, regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval in another jurisdiction. Our failure to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory authorities in another country may significantly diminish the commercial prospects of that product candidate and our business prospects could decline.

Our continued development of our preclinical product candidates will be dependent on receiving positive preclinical data that, in our judgment, merits advancing such programs. Even if we are successful in continuing to build and expand our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify might not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. Similarly, even if the FDA accepts our Investigational New Drug Applications (“INDs”),INDs, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in our efforts to advance our preclinical product candidates into clinical trials.

If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may enter into agreements with third parties to market them on a worldwide basis or in more limited geographical regions. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

These and other risks associated with our international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products will be available from government authorities, private health insurers, health maintenance organizations and other entities. These third‑party payors determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels, and increasingly attempt to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Several third‑party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, are using preferred drug lists to leverage greater discounts in competitive classes and are challenging the prices charged for drugs. In addition, federal programs impose penalties on drug manufacturers in the form of mandatory additional rebates and/or discounts if commercial prices increase at a rate greater than the Consumer Price Index‑Urban, and these rebates and/or discounts, which can be substantial, may impact our ability to raise commercial prices. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if coverage is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Coverage and reimbursement

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates for a drug may vary according to the clinical setting in which it is used and may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Prices paid for a drug also vary depending on the class of trade. Prices charged to government customers are subject to price controls and private institutions obtain discounts through group purchasing organizations. Net prices for drugs may be further reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs and demanded by private payors, and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from both government‑funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Moreover, the regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and related to the commercial sale of our products. Product liability claims may be brought against us by subjects enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, healthcare providers or others using, administering or selling our products. For example, we may be sued if any product we sell allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products that we may develop caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold product and clinical trial liability insurance coverage, but it might not adequately cover all liabilities that we incur. We might not be able to maintain clinical trial insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. We also maintain insurance coverage for our commercially available products, which might not adequately cover all liabilities that we may incur. We might not be able to maintain insurance coverage for our approved products at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects. A product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, whether or not successful, but particularly if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and adversely affect our reputation and business.

We do not currently have a robust sales or marketing infrastructure. To develop our internal sales, distribution and marketing capabilities for new product candidates, we will have to invest significant amounts of financial and management resources, some of which will be committed prior to any confirmation that any new product candidates will be approved. For product candidates for which we decide to perform sales, marketing and distribution functions ourselves, we could face a number of additional risks, including:

Where and when appropriate, we may elect to utilize contract sales forces or strategic partners to assist in the commercialization of our product candidates. If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services for our products, the resulting revenues or the profitability from these revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we had sold, marketed and distributed our products ourselves. In addition, we might not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our products effectively. Such third parties may also not comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, which could potentially expose us to regulatory and legal enforcement actions.

We rely upon third‑party CROs to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our clinical trials and, while we have agreements governing their activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We, our clinical trial sites, and our CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we, any of our CROs or clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications, if at all. In addition, we are required to report certain financial interests of our third‑party investigators if these

serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash compensation in connection with such services or otherwise receive compensation from us that could be deemed to impact study outcome, proprietary interests in a product candidate, certain company equity interests, or significant payments of other sorts. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements. In addition, we must conduct our clinical trials with product produced under applicable GMP requirements. Failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat preclinical and clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process.

Our CROs and clinical trial sites are not our employees, and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs and clinical trial sites, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. These CROs and clinical trial sites may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. If CROs or clinical trial sites do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we might not be able to obtain marketing approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates or we may be subject to regulatory enforcement actions. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed. To the extent we are unable to successfully identify and manage the performance of third‑party service providers in the future, our business may be adversely affected.

Switching or adding CROs involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We do not own or operate, and have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities for our product candidates. We have limited personnel with experience in drug manufacturing and we lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale.

We currently outsource all manufacturing of our product candidates to third parties typically without any guarantee that there will be sufficient supplies to fulfill our requirements or that we may obtain such supplies on acceptable terms. Any delays in obtaining adequate supplies with respect to our product candidates may delay the development or commercialization of our other product candidates.

In addition, we do not currently have agreements with all third‑party manufacturers for the long‑term commercial supply of our product candidates. We may be unable to enter agreements for commercial supply with third‑party manufacturers, or may be unable to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we enter into these agreements, the various manufacturers of each product candidate will likely be single source suppliers to us for a significant period of time.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA or BLA to the FDA. While we are ultimately responsible for the manufacture of our product candidates, other than through our contractual arrangements, we do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with GMP requirements for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products for clinical supply and eventually for commercial supply, if we receive regulatory approval. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. Failure of our contract manufacturers to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may also subject us to regulatory enforcement actions. In addition, other than through our contractual agreements, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Reliance on third‑party manufacturers subjects us to risks that would not affect us if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including:

Our suppliers are subject to regulatory requirements, covering manufacturing, testing, quality control, manufacturing, and record keeping relating to our product candidates, and subject to ongoing inspections by the regulatory agencies. Failure by any of our suppliers to comply with applicable regulations may result in long delays and interruptions to our manufacturing capacity while we seek to secure another supplier that meets all regulatory requirements, as well as market disruption related to any necessary recalls or other corrective actions.

In connectionA part of our strategy is to enter into product development collaborations in the future, including collaborations with major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies for the Aytu Divestiture, we retained the rights to Millipreddevelopment or commercialization of our current and entered into a Transition Services Agreement with Aytu. Pursuant to the Transition Services Agreement, Aytu is responsible for managing the commercial operations of Millipred, including providing accounting reporting services and managing the third‑party logistics provider for up to 18 months (post November 1, 2019). We exercise no control over the activities of Aytu, other than the contractual rights we have pursuant to our Transitionfuture product candidates.

Services Agreement. If Aytu wereWe also face significant competition in seeking appropriate development partners and the negotiation process is time‑consuming and complex. We might not succeed in our efforts to failestablish development collaborations or other alternative arrangements for any of our existing or future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to fulfill allbe at too early a stage of itsdevelopment for collaborative effort and/or third parties might not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Even if we are successful in our net revenue from sales of Millipred. If Aytu ceasesefforts to provide services pursuantestablish development collaborations, the terms that we agree upon might not be favorable to the Transition Services Agreement, including upon expiration of the term of the Agreement,us and we might not be able to reestablishmaintain such development collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product candidate are disappointing. Any delay in entering into development collaboration agreements related to our commercial infrastructureproduct candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness if they reach the market. Additionally, collaborations with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies and other third parties often are terminated or allowed to replace these services in a timely manner, if at all, whichexpire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration would materially adversely affect us financially and could harm our financial position. Furthermore, upon expirationbusiness reputation.

The FDA grants product sponsors certain periods of regulatory exclusivity, during which the agency might not approve, and in certain instances, might not accept, certain marketing applications for competing drugs. For example, product sponsors may be eligible for five years of exclusivity from the date of approval of a new chemical entity, seven years of exclusivity for drugs that are designated to be orphan drugs, and/or a six‑month period of exclusivity added to any existing exclusivity period or patent life for the submission of FDA requested pediatric data. While we intend to apply for all periods of market exclusivity that we may be eligible for, there is no guarantee that we will receive all such periods of market exclusivity. Additionally, under certain circumstances, the FDA may revoke the period of market exclusivity. As a result, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain a period of market exclusivity, even if granted. In the case of ODD, other benefits, such as tax credits and exemption from user fees may be available. If we are not able to obtain or maintain orphan drug designation or any period of market exclusivity to which we may be entitled, we will be materially harmed, as we will potentially be subject to greater market competition and may lose the benefits associated with programs.

Our success depends in significant part on our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to establish, maintain and protect patents and other intellectual property rights and operate without infringing the intellectual property rights of others. We have filed numerous patent applications both in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions to obtain patent rights to inventions we have discovered. We have also licensed from third parties’ rights to patent portfolios.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time‑consuming, and we and our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators might not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Moreover, in some circumstances, we might not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors, licensees or collaborators. Therefore, these patents and applications might not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors, licensees or collaborators are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent rights are highly

Furthermore, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio might not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to our products. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms where these are available in any countries where we are prosecuting patents. This includes in the United States under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, which permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, might not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our licensors and collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose the ability to continue the development and commercialization of our product candidates or face other penalties under these agreements. We are party to the following agreements:

We are party to license and development agreements with various third parties. For example, we are party to athe KKC License Agreement, the Astellas License Agreement, the AZ License Agreement, and a Sponsored Research Agreement with CHOP, and an Amended and Restated Clinical Development and Option Agreement with Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd. (the “KKC Development and Option Agreement”) pursuant to which we exclusively license certain technology related to CERC-002, an Exclusivethe SBP License Agreement with OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, Inc. (“Astellas”), for CERC-006 (the “Astellas Agreement”) and the AZ Agreement. We may be required to make significant payments in connection with the License Agreement and Sponsored Research Agreement with CHOP and have certain ongoing payment obligations with respect to the Sponsored Research Agreement with CHOP. If we exercise our option under the terms ofsuch agreements including (but not limited to):

If the obligations become due under the terms any of these agreements, we might not have sufficient funds available to meet our obligations and our development efforts may be negatively impacted. In addition, if we do not have sufficient funds to pay our ongoing obligations under the agreements with CHOP, we may lose our rights under the License Agreement and Sponsored Research Agreement with CHOP, which could negatively impact CERC-002 as well as our ongoing efforts to identify new targets and programs for development.

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non‑compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non‑payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors or collaborators fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors or collaborators alleging that we or our licensors or collaborators infringe their intellectual property rights or we or our licensors or collaborators may initiate legal proceedings against third parties to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights controlled by third parties, including in oppositions, interferences, reexaminations, inter partes reviews or derivation proceedings before the United States or other jurisdictions. These proceedings can be expensive and time‑consuming and many of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors or collaborators can.

An unfavorable outcome could require us or our licensors or collaborators to cease using the related technology or developing or commercializing our product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors or collaborators a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we or our licensors or collaborators obtain a license, it may be non‑exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors or collaborators. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business.

Third parties may infringe on our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights. In the future, we or our licensors or collaborators may initiate legal proceedings to enforce or defend our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights, to protect our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ trade secrets or to determine the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. Also, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors or collaborators to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. The proceedings can be expensive and time‑consuming and many of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors or collaborators can. Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ efforts, we or our licensors or collaborators might not prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws might not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a

court may decide that a patent owned by or licensed to us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using

Third party pre‑issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, or other pre‑issuance or post‑grant proceedings in the United States or other jurisdictions provoked by third parties or brought by us or our licensors or collaborators may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us or our licensors or collaborators to cease using the related technology and commercializing our product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors or collaborators a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we or our licensors or collaborators obtain a license, it may be non‑exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors or collaborators. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Even if we successfully defend such litigation or proceeding, we may incur substantial costs and it may distract our management and other employees. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our warrants or shares of our common stock.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know‑how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. Though we seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non‑disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, as well as by entering into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we might not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time‑consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If a competitor lawfully and without breach of a confidentiality obligation obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve technological and legal complexity, and obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time‑consuming, and inherently uncertain. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and patents we and our licensors or collaborators may obtain in the future. Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act was signed into law. The America Invents Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO also developed regulations and procedures to govern administration of the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. The America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the

prosecution of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we and our licensors or collaborators might not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors or collaborators have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents or other intellectual property rights might not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us and our licensors or collaborators to stop the infringement of our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors or collaborators. We or our licensors or collaborators might not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors or collaborators initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, might not be commercially meaningful.

The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. For example, unlike other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability, and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. Furthermore, generic or biosimilar drug manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ patents, requiring us or our licensors or collaborators to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. Generic or biosimilar drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for, and launch biosimilar versions of our products. Certain countries, including India and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors or collaborators may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors or collaborators are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license.

The Healthcare sector is heavily regulated in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted abroad, and new laws, regulations, and/or proposed legislativejudicial decisions—or new interpretations of such laws, regulations, or decisions—could negatively impact our business, operations, and regulatoryfinancial condition. Our business and financial operations could also be negatively affected by ongoing changes affectingin health care spending policies in the healthcare system that may affect our ability to profitably sell our productUnited States and product candidates, if approved.abroad. The United States federal government, state legislaturesgovernments, and foreign governments also have shown significant and increasing interest in implementing cost-containment programsinitiatives intended to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including without limitation price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs.drugs, prior authorization requirements, and increased copays and cost shares for beneficiaries. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was intended to broaden access to(“Affordable Care Act”), for instance, increased federal oversight of private health insurance plans and included a number of provisions designed to reduce or constrainMedicare expenditures and the growthcost of healthcare spending, enhance remedies againsthealth care generally, to reduce fraud and abuse, add transparency requirements for the healthcare and to provide access to increased health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. Among thecoverage. The implemented provisions of the Affordable Care Act that have been implemented since enactment and are of importance to the commercialization of our product and product candidates, if approved, are the following:include:

ThereEfforts to reform the healthcare sector are ongoing. Since its enactment, there have been significant ongoing judicial, administrative, executivenumerous legal challenges and legislative effortsCongressional actions to modify or eliminaterepeal and replace provisions of the Affordable Care Act. For example, the Tax Act enacted on December 22, 2017,TCJA repealed the shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000AAffordable Care Act’s “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision of the IRC,Affordable Care Act, which required most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. It is unclear what impact the repeal of the individual mandate will have on the viability of the insurance marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act or on the need for future reforms. The Trump administration also took executive actions to delay implementation of portions of the Affordable Care Act, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care Act’s “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. Further, the BBA of 2018, among other things, amended the Affordable Care Act to increase the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the individual mandate. The Trump administration issued executive orders which sought to reduce burdens associated with the Affordable Care Act and modified how it was implemented. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since passage of the Affordable Care Act. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of an amount greater than $1.2 trillion for the fiscal years 2012 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reductions to several government programs.“donut hole.” These reductions included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to healthcare providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013. Subsequent litigation extended the 2% reduction, on average, to 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, the 2% Medicare sequester reductions have been suspended from Mayrevisions became effective January 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.2019.

The Affordable Care Act has also been subject to challenges in the courts. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and remanded the case to the Texas District Court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the entire Affordable Care Act. An appeal was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court which heard oral arguments in the case on November 10, 2020. A ruling is expected in 2021.

We expect further reform to the Affordable Care Act, made by the Trump administration and would advocate for legislation to build on the Affordable Care Act. It is unknown what form any such changes or any law proposed to replace the Affordable Care Act would take, and how or whether it may affect our business in the future. We expect that changes to the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, changes allowingand to the federal government to directly negotiate drug prices andregulation of the healthcare sector generally. Some of these changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry.

Pharmaceutical companies participating in federal and/or state healthcare programs such as MedicareOur business and Medicaidour relationships with customers, physicians, and third-party payors are subject, directly and indirectly, to a multitude of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations which are intended to address and prevent “fraud and abuse”.regulations. These laws also apply to the physicians and third-party payors who play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our commercially available products. Our arrangements with providers, payors, and patients may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse laws. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell, and distribute our products.products and will impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. There are also laws, regulations, and requirements applicable to the award and performance of federal grants and contracts.

Actions resulting in violations of these laws regulations, and requirements may result in civil and criminal liability, damages and restitution, as well as exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, debarment from government contracts and grants and refusal of future orders under existing contracts or contractual damages, reputational damage, and other consequences. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare related laws and regulations include but are not limited to the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involve substantial costs. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmentallaws. regulations or other requirements that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, restitution exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, debarment from government contracts and grants and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, contractual damages, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations and other consequences. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, that person or entity may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Moreover, availability of any federal grant funds which we may receive or for which we may apply is subject to federal appropriations law. GrantSuch grant funding may also be withdrawn or denied due to a violation of the above laws and/or for other reasons.

We may also become subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business such as claims brought by our clients in connection with commercial disputes, or employment claims made by our current or former associates. Litigation might result in substantial costs and may divert management’s attention and resources, which might seriously harm our business, overall financial condition, and operating results. Insurance might not cover such claims, might not provide sufficient payments to cover all the costs to resolve one or more such claims, and might not continue to be available on terms acceptable to us. A claim brought against us that is uninsured or underinsured could result in unanticipated costs, thereby reducing our operating results and leading analysts or potential investors to reduce their expectations of our performance, which could reduce the trading price of our stock.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, manufacturers, consultants and vendors may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: (1) FDA regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information, (2) manufacturing standards, (3) federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations or (4) laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Specifically, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self‑dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a

In addition, during the course of our operations, our directors, executives and employees may have access to material, nonpublic information regarding our business, our results of operations or potential transactions we are considering. We have adopted an Insider Trading and Window Period Policy, but despite the adoption of such policy, we might not be able to prevent a director, an executive or an employee from trading in our common stock on the basis of, or while having access to, material, nonpublic information. If a director, executive or employee was to be investigated, or an action was to be brought against a director, executive or employee for insider trading, it could have a negative impact on our reputation and our stock price. Such a claim, with or without merit, could also result in substantial expenditures of time and money, and divert attention of our management team from other tasks important to the success of our business.

Many of our employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at universities or at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees executed proprietary rights, non‑disclosure and non‑competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. We may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. In addition, we may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement to each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. We could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of

consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license might not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management.

Our common stock is currently listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market. In order to maintain that listing, we must satisfy minimum financial and other continued listing requirements and standards, including those regarding director independence and independent committee requirements, minimum stockholders’ equity, a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share, price, and certain corporate governance requirements. There can be no assurances that we will be able to comply with the applicable listing standards.

In the event that our common stock is delisted from The Nasdaq Stock Market and is not eligible for quotation or listing on another market or exchange, trading of our common stock could be conducted only in the over‑the‑counter market or on an electronic bulletin board established for unlisted securities such as the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board. In such event, it could become more difficult to dispose of, or obtain accurate price quotations for, our common stock, and there would likely also be a reduction in our coverage by securities analysts and the news media, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline further. Also, it may be difficult for us to raise additional capital if we are not listed on a major exchange.

Such a de‑listing would also likely have a negative effect on the price of our common stock and would impair your ability to sell or purchase our common stock when you wish to do so. In the event of a de‑listing, we may take actions to restore our compliance with The Nasdaq Stock Market’s listing requirements, but we can provide no assurance that any such action taken by us would allow our common stock to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our common stock, prevent our common stock from dropping below The Nasdaq Stock Market minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non‑compliance with The Nasdaq Stock Market’s listing requirements.

The market price of our shares of our common stock has been highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which we cannot control. From our initial public offering in October 2015 through December 31, 2020,2021, the per share trading price of our common stock has been as high as $7.65$7.22 and as low as $0.34.$0.44. As a result of this volatility, you might not be able to sell your shares of our common stock at a favorable price. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, these factors that could negatively affect or result in fluctuations in the market price of shares of our common stock include:

In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of shares of common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a material adverse impact on the market price of our shares of common stock. When the market price of a stock is volatile, security holders may institute class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If we become involved in this type of litigation, regardless of the outcome, we could incur substantial legal costs and our management’s attention could be diverted from the operation of our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We expect that additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to our existing stockholders.

Armistice makes investments in companies and may, from time to time, acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. Armistice may also pursue, for its own account, acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business, and as a result, those acquisition opportunities might not be available to us. The interests of the Armistice may supersede ours, causing Armistice or their affiliates to compete against us or to pursue opportunities instead of us, for which we have no recourse. Such actions on the part of Armistice and inaction on our part could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Armistice controls a seattwo seats on our board of directors. Since Armistice could invest in entities that directly or indirectly compete with us, when conflicts arise between the interests of Armistice and the interests of our stockholders, this directorthe directors appointed by Armistice might not be disinterested.

The continued operation and expansion of our business will require substantial funding. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that we will pay any cash dividends on shares of our common stock for the foreseeable future. Consequently, currently stockholders must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment. Any determination to pay dividends in the future will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon results of operations, financial condition, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors our board of directors deems relevant.

As of December 31, 2020, we lost our status as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. Notwithstanding, we qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which allows us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements applicable to us as a former emerging growth company, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive because of our reliance on any of these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accountingare required to comply with certain additional corporate governance and other expenses. We are subjectfinancial reporting practices and policies. As a result, due to the reportingcompliance requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act, as well as rules adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC, Thelisting requirements of the Nasdaq, Stock Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations, imposed on public companies, including the establishmentwe have and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our managementwill continue to incur significant legal, accounting, and other personnel will needexpenses. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly, and current reports with respect to devoteour business and operating results with the SEC. We are also required to ensure that we have the ability to prepare financial statements and other disclosures that are fully compliant with all SEC reporting requirements on a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, we expecttimely basis. Compliance with these rules and regulations has increased and may continue to substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs, and to make some activities more

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our bylaws; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This choice of forum provision does not preclude or contract the scope of exclusive federal or concurrent jurisdiction for any actions brought under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Accordingly, our exclusive forum provision will not relieve us of our duties to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with these laws, rules and regulations.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any of our securities will be deemed to have notice of and consented to these provisions. These exclusive‑forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees.

If a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.