AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC. - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

​

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

​

​

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2022

or

​

​

For the Transition Period from                     to                    .

Commission File Number 001-38114

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

​

1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 301, Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154

(Address of principal executive offices and zip code)

(781) 652-4500

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

​

​

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).   Yes  ☒ No  ☐

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

​

​

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $2,946,058.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

​

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III incorporates information from certain portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the fiscal year end of December 31, 2022.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain matters discussed in this report may constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements other than statements of current or historical fact contained in this report, including statements that express our intentions, plans, objectives, beliefs, expectations, strategies, predictions or any other statements relating to our future activities or other future events or conditions are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “should,” “project,” “will,” “would” and similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections made by management about our business, our industry and other conditions affecting our financial condition, results of operations or business prospects. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements due to numerous risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause such outcomes and results to differ include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties arising from:

​

Table of Contents

​

The forward-looking statements contained in this report speak only as of the date on which they are made, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this press release, except as required by applicable law. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to risks of which you should be aware before making an investment decision. The risks described below are a summary of the principal risks associated with an investment in us and are not the only risks we face. You should carefully consider these risk factors, the risk factors described in Item 1A, and the other reports and documents that we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Risks Pertaining to Our Business and Influence

Risks Pertaining to Our Finances

​

Table of Contents

​

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

Risks Pertaining to Regulatory Approval Process

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates

​

Table of Contents

​

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes Thereof

Risks Pertaining to the Influence of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress”)

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

PART I

Item 1.          Business

Overview

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (“Avenue” or the “Company”) is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of rare and neurologic diseases. Our current product candidates include AJ201 for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (“SBMA”), intravenous (IV) Tramadol (“IV Tramadol”) for the treatment of post-operative acute pain, and BAER-101 for the treatment of epilepsy and panic disorders. We may in the future acquire additional product candidates.

In February 2023, we announced that we entered into a license agreement with AnnJi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“AnnJi”) whereby the Company obtained an exclusive license from AnnJi to intellectual property rights pertaining to the molecule known as JM17, which activates Nrf1 and Nrf2, enhances androgen receptor degradation and underlies AJ201, a clinical product candidate currently in a Phase 1b/2a clinical trial in the United States (“U.S.”) for the treatment of SBMA, also known as Kennedy’s Disease.

In November 2022, we completed a Share Contribution Agreement, dated May 11, 2022 (the “Share Contribution Agreement”) with Fortress Biotech, Inc (“Fortress”) to acquire the shares in Baergic Bio, Inc. (“Baergic”), which is developing BAER-101, a novel α2/3–subtype-selective GABA A positive allosteric modulator (“PAM”). As a result, Baergic is a majority-controlled and owned subsidiary company of Avenue.

As used throughout this filing, the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Avenue individually or together with our subsidiary, Baergic, each as dictated by context.

We are a majority-controlled subsidiary of Fortress.

Acquisition of Our Product Candidates Under Development

AJ201

In February 2023, we licensed intellectual property rights pertaining to the molecule known as JM17, which actives Nrf1 and Nrf2, enhances androgen receptor degradation and underlies AJ201 from AnnJi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. AJ201 is currently in a Phase 1b/2a clinical trial in the U.S. for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, also known as Kennedy’s Disease. SBMA is a rare, inherited, X-linked genetic neuromuscular disease primarily affecting men. The condition is caused by a polyglutamine expansion in the androgen receptor (“AR”) which leads to production of an abnormal AR protein that forms aggregates responsible for muscle atrophy focused in the spinal-bulbar region of the body. The weakening of the bulbar muscles affects chewing, speech and swallowing, with patients prone to choking or inhaling foods or liquids, resulting in airway infection. SBMA also affects muscles in the limbs, leading to difficulty walking and injury caused by falling. Currently, there is no effective treatment for SBMA.

AJ201 was designed to modify SBMA through multiple mechanisms including degradation of the abnormal AR protein and by stimulating Nrf1 and Nrf2, which are involved in protecting cells from oxidative stress which can lead to cell death. AJ201 completed a Phase 1 clinical trial in 2021, which demonstrated the safety of the molecule. It is currently being studied in a Phase 1b/2a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial in six clinical sites across the U.S., and screening of patients with SBMA has begun. This study aims to evaluate the safety and clinical response of AJ201 in patients suffering from SBMA. AJ201 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the indications of SBMA, Huntington’s Disease and Spinocerebellar Ataxia.

IV Tramadol

Under the terms of certain agreements described herein, we have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize IV Tramadol in the United States. In 2016, we completed a pharmacokinetic study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers as well as an end of phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). In the third quarter of 2017, we initiated a Phase 3 development program of IV Tramadol for the management of post-operative pain. In December 2019, we submitted a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for IV Tramadol and received a Complete Response Letter (the “First CRL”) from the FDA in October 2020. In February 2021, we resubmitted the NDA for IV Tramadol. The FDA assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) goal date of April 12, 2021

4

Table of Contents

​

for the resubmitted NDA for IV Tramadol. On June 14, 2021, we announced that we had received a second Complete Response Letter (the “Second CRL”) from the FDA regarding our NDA for IV tramadol. We submitted a formal dispute resolution request (“FDRR”) with the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA on July 27, 2021. On August 26, 2021, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA in response to the FDRR submitted on July 27, 2021. On August 31, 2021, we submitted a FDRR with the Office of New Drugs (“OND”) of the FDA. On October 21, 2021, we received a written response from the OND of the FDA stating that the OND needs additional input from an Advisory Committee in order to reach a decision on the FDRR. On February 15, 2022, we had our Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA. In the final part of the public meeting, the Advisory Committee voted yes or no on the following question: “Has the Applicant submitted adequate information to support the position that the benefits of their product outweigh the risks for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in an inpatient setting?” The results were 8 yes votes and 14 no votes. On March 18, 2022, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the OND in response to the FDRR. On August 31, 2022, the Company disclosed that, on June 17, 2022, following the receipt of the Letter, the Company submitted a Type A Meeting Request and related briefing documents to the FDA. The meeting was granted by the Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products (“DAAAP”) on June 27, 2022, and scheduled for August 9, 2022. The Company submitted a briefing document presenting a study design that the Company believed has the potential to address the comments and deficiencies noted in the Letter and sought the DAAAP’s guidance to refine the study design that would support a resubmission of a New Drug Application for the Company’s current lead product candidate, intravenous Tramadol. The meeting on August 9, 2022 was a collaborative discussion on the study design and potential path forward. We incorporated the FDA’s suggestions from the meeting minutes and submitted a detailed study protocol that could form the basis for the submission of a complete response to the Second CRL.

We announced on March 8, 2023 that the Company would participate in a Type C meeting with the FDA on March 9, 2023 to discuss a proposed study protocol to assess the risk of respiratory depression related to opioid stacking on IV Tramadol relative to an approved opioid analgesic. We continue to evaluate next steps with regard to IV Tramadol.

BAER-101 (novel α2/3–subtype-selective GABA A PAM)

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

Our Strategy

Our primary objective is to establish each of our product candidates as an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options for the treatment of patients with rare and neurologic diseases. The key elements of our strategy include:

5

Table of Contents

​

AJ201 and the SBMA Treatment Market

SBMA Background

We are currently focused on developing AJ201 for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (“SBMA”), also known as Kennedy’s Disease.

SBMA is a rare, inherited, X-linked genetic neuromuscular disease primarily affecting men. Onset of the disease is typically in adulthood, between the ages of 30 and 50, and results in significant debilitating symptoms and decreased quality of life issues.

The condition is caused by a polyglutamine expansion in the AR which leads to production of an abnormal AR protein that forms aggregates responsible for muscle atrophy focused in the spinal-bulbar region of the body. The weakening of the bulbar muscles affects chewing, speech and swallowing, with patients prone to choking or inhaling foods or liquids, resulting in airway infection. SBMA also affects muscles in the limbs, leading to difficulty walking and injury caused by falling. Although there is a range of cited prevalence rates in the literature, a recent study using genetic analysis to estimated disease prevalence of 1:6,887 males. (Zanovello M et al. Brain. 2023; doi:10.1093/brain/awad050).

Currently, there is no FDA approved treatment for SBMA and patients are managed with physical therapy, steroids, and pain management in the United States. Therapies in development focus on the reduction of aggregated mutant androgen receptors and resultant neurotoxicity.

AJ201 Overview

AJ201 is a pleiotropic small molecule that was designed to modify multiple mechanisms including degradation of the abnormal AR protein and stimulation of Nrf1 and Nrf2, which are involved in protecting cells form oxidative stress which can lead to cell death. We believe AJ201 may treat SBMA by enhancing mutant protein degradation and decreasing neuroinflammation.

AJ201 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for SBMA, Huntington’s disease, and spinocerebellar ataxia.

Development History and Strategy

Preclinical efficacy data has shown that AJ201: (1) reduces levels and accumulation of the mutant AR protein in mouse muscle tissues; (2) enhances degradation of mutant AR in SBMA patient fibroblasts; and (3) leads to improved motor function in symptomatic animals compared with vehicle control based on a grip test in an SBMA disease mouse model.

In 2021, a Phase 1 single ascending dose and multiple ascending dose study was conducted with AJ201 in healthy volunteers in Australia. A total of 72 subjects were enrolled and none were withdrawn due to safety concerns. The drug was shown to be well tolerated with no serious adverse events and no significant food effect on drug absorption. The drug-proportional exposure was over 40-fold of the dose ranging from 15 mg to 600 mg and drug absorption plateaued above 600 mg. No drug accumulation was seen over repeated daily treatment.

In late 2022, a Phase 1b/2a multicenter double-blind randomized clinical trial was initiated to assess the tolerability of AJ201 in patients with clinically and genetically defined SBMA with a secondary objective of assessing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AJ201 in skeletal muscles. We expect the trial to enroll 20 early SBMA patients 18 years of age or older in the U.S. across six sites including Stanford University, University of California, Irvine, the National Institutes of Health, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Mayo Clinic Rochester, and Washington University in St. Louis. The patients will be dosed once daily orally with 600 mg of AJ201 for 12 weeks with a four-week follow-up period.

6

Table of Contents

​

Tramadol and The U.S. Postoperative Pain Market

Postoperative Pain Market

We are currently focused on developing IV Tramadol for the management of postoperative acute pain. Even though the postoperative pain market is entrenched with low cost, generic pain relievers, we believe that there remains a significant unmet medical need for safer and better-tolerated analgesics.

The major goal in the management of postoperative pain is minimizing the dose of medications to lessen side effects while still providing adequate pain relief for analgesia. Understanding the range of available interventions and considering the type of surgery is essential in order to provide safe and effective pain management. The general consensus among pain management practitioners is that use of more than one modality (i.e., molecules with different mechanisms or with different routes of administration) is optimal for successful postoperative pain management. The most commonly prescribed agents in the immediate postoperative pain market are typically acetaminophen, or APAP, NSAIDS, and opioid analgesics. APAP and NSAIDs are not sufficiently effective as the sole agent for pain management after major surgery in most patients. However, when used in conjunction with opioids, APAP and NSAIDs offer substantial benefits as the quality of analgesia is often improved or enhanced due to their differentiated mechanism of action.

Traditional opioids offer safe and effective postoperative pain control and can be used in combination with other agents and techniques. However, the side effects of opioids, such as morphine, include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression. Physical dependence and addiction are clinical concerns that may prevent proper prescribing and, in turn, inadequate pain management. Less common side effects include delayed gastric emptying, hyperalgesia, immunologic and hormonal dysfunction, muscle rigidity, and myoclonus. Importantly, they are Schedule II opioids (per DEA classification) and carry a high abuse potential.

Tramadol

Tramadol, a synthetic dual-acting opioid, is a centrally acting analgesic with weak opioid agonist properties. It also works via the inhibition of serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake and blocking nociceptive impulses at the spinal level. These opioid and non-opioid modes of action are synergistic, essentially providing “multimodal therapy” with the use of a single drug. Tramadol is also commonly combined with APAP or NSAIDS in clinical practice. Tramadol has a well-established efficacy and safety profile and has been used throughout the world for more than 30 years. In the United States, tramadol is approved and marketed as an oral agent indicated in adults for the management of pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. Tramadol was first approved in the United States in 1995, under the trade name Ultram® immediate release tablet (Ortho-McNeil-Janssen). Ultracet®, a combination product containing tramadol and acetaminophen, is also marketed in the United States (Ortho-McNeil-Janssen). According to Symphony Health Solutions, approximately 30 million scripts for tramadol and tramadol-containing drugs were filled in retail pharmacies in the United States in 2020.

Tramadol has low potential for abuse and addiction and is currently classified by the DEA as a Schedule IV controlled substance. For comparison, other opioids which have a high potential for abuse, including meperidine, morphine, hydromorphone and oxycodone, are all classified as Schedule II controlled substances.

The clinical trials from our development program are summarized below:

7

Table of Contents

​

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) definition, substances classified as Schedule II have “a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence” and substances classified as Schedule IV are “drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule II and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics.”

The table below summarizes the available intravenous analgesic options in postoperative pain management currently available in the United States.

​

Advantages of IV Tramadol

Parenteral tramadol is approved and used for the management of postoperative acute pain throughout much of the world. Parenteral formulations include IV, intramuscular, or IM, and subcutaneous, or SC, formulations. During the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, approximately 370 million doses of parenteral tramadol were used in Europe, according to data from IQVIA (a 3^rd party data provider). There is no parenteral formulation currently approved in the United States.

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, can fill the unmet need in the post-surgical setting and could be an effective alternative to traditional opioids but carry a lower potential for abuse because tramadol is a Schedule IV opioid in the U.S. We believe that the introduction of an IV formulation of tramadol in the United States will address many of the shortcomings of other opioid agonists, and APAP, and NSAIDs, all of which are currently used in the postoperative setting. IV Tramadol’s potential advantages compared to current standard-of-care agents, along with the known efficacy, safety and tolerability profile for oral tramadol support the use of IV Tramadol in this setting. We believe that the risks associated with the use of IV Tramadol will be benign compared to other opioids, and consistent with that of the currently marketed oral tramadol products. Consequently, with the industry trend toward multimodal therapy and away from Schedule II narcotics, if approved, IV Tramadol’s unique profile could position it to become an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options in the management of postoperative pain.

We administered IV Tramadol over approximately 15 minutes in our Phase 3 trials. We believe that our method of administration of IV Tramadol may provide significant benefits such as reduced side effects, compared to previously approved methods of administration of IV Tramadol in Europe, which is typically accomplished via a slow push over 2 to 3 minutes. In addition, our IV Tramadol dosing regimen produces a similar Cmax (maximal blood level) and AUC (overall systemic exposure) to those of oral tramadol at steady state, which we believe ensures an easy transition from IV to oral therapy in the post-surgical setting.

Based on the trials done in Europe and on the data generated with oral tramadol, we believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will be an attractive option for physicians who treat postoperative pain in the U.S., due to the following attributes:

8

Table of Contents

​

Clinical Development History

Revogenex, the previous Sponsor and Licensor, completed multiple nonclinical PK and toxicology studies in dogs, a Phase 1 dose proportionality study and a thorough QT/QTc (“TQT”) study of IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers, or the TQT Study. The dose proportionality study was designed to compare maximum exposure and cumulative exposures of IV Tramadol to that of oral tramadol, and to assess the dose proportionality of IV Tramadol in healthy adult volunteers. The TQT Study was done to evaluate whether IV Tramadol has the potential to affect the “corrected QT interval”, or QTc, in healthy volunteers. The QTc represents electrical depolarization and repolarization of the heart ventricles. A lengthened QTc is a marker for the potential of ventricular arrhythmias. The results of these studies are consistent with tramadol’s known toxicology profile, pharmacokinetics and pharmacology.

PK Study for IV Tramadol

In general, Phase 2 clinical trials include initial proof-of-concept efficacy studies, dose-finding studies, and initial safety assessments in the target (i.e., to-be-treated) population. We did not conduct Phase 2 clinical trials for IV Tramadol because tramadol is a known analgesic, and oral tramadol is labeled “for the management of pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate” in the United States. Instead, we completed pharmacokinetic (“PK”) simulations and conducted a pharmacokinetic and safety study in healthy volunteers, in order to select a Phase 3 dose and dosing regimen designed to achieve exposure to tramadol similar to that provided by oral tramadol. In 2016, we completed a PK study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers. A PK study generally involves dosing an experimental medicine in healthy volunteers and taking a series of blood measurements from the study participants to understand how the body handles the drug. A PK study provides information on important parameters such as systemic exposure, maximal and minimal levels of drug concentration in the blood and their time courses. The PK study we conducted was used to select a dose and dosing regimen of IV Tramadol that achieves similar exposure to that provided by oral tramadol at steady state.

The PK study was designed as a three-way cross over study in 18 healthy volunteers. Each subject in the study served as his/her own control and received oral tramadol as well as two different doses of IV Tramadol. Based on the results of the PK study, we decided to use a 50 mg dose in our pivotal Phase 3 program.

Our Clinical Development Strategy for IV Tramadol

At our EOP2 meeting with FDA, we discussed Phase 3 program requirements for IV Tramadol and confirmed the key elements of the Phase 3 program design. We conducted two pivotal Phase 3 trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV Tramadol, and one additional safety study. All three trials enrolled patients who required IV analgesia following surgery. Over 1,000 patients were enrolled in the Phase 3 program. We believe that the design of our Phase 3 program is consistent with the design of Phase 3 programs for other analgesics being developed.

Postoperative pain following bunionectomy (orthopedic surgery model).  The first Phase 3 trial was conducted in patients undergoing bunionectomy surgery, which is considered an orthopedic surgical model. 409 patients were randomized and treated in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of two doses of IV Tramadol, or placebo, for 48 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint was Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 48 hours (SPID 48), which is a measure of the overall effectiveness of the drug in reducing pain intensity during the 48-hour period. This trial commenced in the third quarter of 2017. In May 2018, we announced the trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints.

Postoperative pain following abdominoplasty (soft tissue model).  The second Phase 3 safety and efficacy trial was conducted in patients undergoing abdominoplasty surgery, which is considered a soft-tissue surgical model. 370 patients were randomized and treated in a 3:3:2 ratio to IV Tramadol, placebo or a standard-of-care comparator arm. The primary efficacy endpoint was Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 24 hours (SPID 24). The trial commenced in December 2018. In June 2019, we announced the trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints.

Open-label safety study.  We initiated the safety study in December 2017 and ran this study concurrently with the two Phase 3 trials. 251 patients were enrolled in the safety study, which had an open label, single arm design. We completed this study in May 2019 and the results showed that IV Tramadol was well-tolerated in multiple surgical models with a side effect profile consistent with known pharmacology.

9

Table of Contents

​

License Agreement with Revogenex Ireland Ltd.

Effective as of February 17, 2015, Fortress obtained a worldwide (with the exception of Canada, Central America and South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV Tramadol HCl injections) exclusive license to make, market and sell IV Tramadol pursuant to an agreement with Revogenex, a privately held company in Dublin, Ireland, or the License Agreement. Under the terms of the License Agreement, Fortress paid Revogenex an up-front licensing fee of $2.0 million upon execution and an additional $1.0 million on June 17, 2015. A $1.0 million milestone payment was due upon NDA submission in December 2019 which was incurred by us. There is also an additional milestone totaling $3.0 million due upon the FDA approval of IV Tramadol. Additional high single-digit to low double-digit royalty payments on net sales of licensed products are due. Royalties will be paid on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the expiration in each country of the valid patent claim. In return, Fortress obtained the exclusive worldwide rights to three U.S. patents related to the “Intravenous Administration of Tramadol”: U.S. Patent No. 8,895,622 (the ’622 patent), which issued on November 25, 2014; U.S. Patent No. 9,561,195 (the ’195 patent), which issued on February 7, 2017; and U.S. Patent No. 9,566,253 (the ’253 patent), which issued on February 14, 2017 (all with the exception of Canada, Central America and South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV Tramadol HCl injections). Additionally, Fortress acquired the rights to an open U.S. Investigational New Drug Application pertaining to IV Tramadol, as well as all supporting documentation and relevant correspondence with the FDA. Further, under the License Agreement, Fortress assumed the rights and obligations of Revogenex under its current manufacturing agreement with Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma (Polpharma), or the Manufacturing Agreement. Fortress transferred all its rights and obligations under the License Agreement and the Manufacturing Agreement to us pursuant to an Asset Transfer Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015.

The License Agreement will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, unless the agreement is earlier terminated. In addition to standard early termination provisions, the License Agreement may also be terminated early by: (i) Revogenex if the FDA does not issue an approval or otherwise issues a “not approvable” notice for the NDA within 27 months after the NDA has been filed with the FDA (December 2019), although this termination right will be tolled if we are using commercial reasonable efforts in our negotiations with the FDA for approval and if we receive a “not approvable” notice (October 2020), we will have a 15 month period to correct any issues and re-submit the NDA for approval, (ii) us if we reasonably determine prior to NDA approval that the development of IV Tramadol is not economically viable, or (iii) either Revogenex or us (provided we are using or have used commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize IV Tramadol) if, after the third anniversary date of the commercial launch, we fail to achieve annual net sales with respect to IV Tramadol of at least $20 million in any given calendar year, with certain exceptions.

BAER-101 and the Addressable Market

BAER-101 Overview and Strategy

BAER-101 (formerly known as AZD7325) is a novel selective oral GABA-A α2 and α3 PAM. Modulators of GABA-A receptors (GABA-ARs) have entered a new age in their clinical development with multiple assets moving forward since the 2019 U.S. FDA approval of brexanolone (Zulresso®). These compounds are being developed for a host of therapeutic indications including epilepsy, anxiety, pain, depression, and other disease states. BAER-101 is a small molecule potentiator of GABA-ARs with oral bioavailability that preferentially activates α2- and α3-containing GABA-ARs.

Preclinical data have substantiated the efficacy of BAER-101 as a novel anxiolytic and antiepileptic with potential for also treating Fragile X Syndrome. Consistent with its selectivity over α1-preferring GABA-ARs, BAER-101 may have a reduced propensity to produce sedation and memory impairment.

BAER-101 has demonstrated efficacy in several preclinical models that may predict efficacy in patients. BAER-101 produced potent anxiolytic-like effects in rodents, anticonvulsant activity in certain rodent seizure models, efficacy in rodent models of Dravet syndrome and in a rodent model of Fragile X syndrome. Studies in rodents have also demonstrated good tolerability, with minimal ability to induce motor and memory impairment, characteristic effects of non α-selective GABA-AR potentiators like the benzodiazepine (“BDZ”) diazepam. EEG power analysis also differentiated BAER-101 from compounds like the BDZ lorazepam. Physical dependence and abuse liability of BAER-101 are also reduced in model systems compared to non-selective GABA-AR modulators.

We plan to validate BAER-101’s efficacy in highly predictive preclinical models to inform the optimal path forward for the Phase 1b clinical trial(s) that we intend to initiate in 2023.

10

Table of Contents

​

Diseases Currently Treated with Nonselective GABA-A Drugs: Benzodiazepines

Epilepsy Background

Epilepsy is a chronic disease that manifests as recurrent unprovoked seizures from abnormal electrical discharge in the brain. An epilepsy diagnosis requires at least 2 unprovoked seizures.

The current standard of care treatment involves use of one or more anti-epileptic drugs (“AED”). Side effects of approved therapies include dizziness, nausea, headache, vomiting, fatigue, vertigo, ataxia, blurred vision, and tremor. Even with the availability of approved drugs, 30% of patients do not achieve seizure control with two or more AEDs and these patients are characterized as drug-resistant. The consequences of poorly controlled epilepsy can be quite severe and include shortened lifespan, excessive bodily injury, neuropsychological and psychiatric impairment, and social disability.

Benzodiazepines are a class of AED that are used to treat seizures (convulsions). The use of benzodiazepines for a chronic disease such as epilepsy is limited by the side effect profile including drowsiness, confusion, dizziness, impaired coordination, increased risk of falls and accidents, and depression. More serious side effects include memory problems and behavioral changes — such as increased risk taking, delirium, and risk of dependence.

Studies have shown that people with seizures have a deficit in GABA neurotransmission. GABA, a major inhibitory neurotransmitter, inhibits the activity of nerves that could initiate the seizure. Benzodiazepines mainly work by affecting the gamma amino-butyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters in the brain. Specifically, benzodiazepines enhance the activity of GABA by binding to its receptor, and opening its chloride channel, enabling release of GABA, resulting in anticonvulsant activity.

Benzodiazepines act non-selectively by enhancing the inhibitory effects of gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) at GABA-A receptors containing either an α1, α2, α3, or α5 subunit. The field has progressed with the development of selective GABA-A receptor modulators that preferentially target one or more receptor subunits and BAER-101 is such a modulator. BAER-101 is selective for the α2, α3 receptor subunits an, as a result we believe it should provide an anti-convulsant effect while limiting the side effects associated with the α1 receptor.

Acute Anxiety Background

Panic disorder is a common form of an acute anxiety disorder manifesting as frequent panic attacks unrelated to specific situations. Panic attacks involve sudden, intense episodes of apprehension, terror, feelings of impending doom and intense urge to flee, with symptoms reaching peak intensity within ten minutes. Patients can end up presenting to the emergency room simulating physical symptoms which can include labored breathing, heart palpitations, nausea, upset stomach, chest pain, feelings of choking and smothering, dizziness, sweating, lightheadedness, chills, heat sensations, and trembling. Other symptoms may include depersonalization, derealization, and fears of mental illness, losing control, or dying.

Panic disorder is treated with a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy and anxiolytics (drugs that reduce anxiety). These drugs include the following classes: benzodiazepines, tricyclics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Side effects can be problematic with existing medications especially with benzodiazepines, that have the potential for symptom exacerbation and abuse.

BAER-101 and AZD7325 Development History

BAER-101 (AZD7325) has been studied in various preclinical studies demonstrating:

11

Table of Contents

​

A total of 722 male and female subjects have been exposed to BAER-101 in clinical trials and the drug has an established safety profile across multiple clinical studies. Studies completed to date include a single ascending dose (SAD) study, a multiple ascending dose (MAD) study, a Japanese SAD study, a 11C-flumazenil-labeled PET study, an exploratory study specifically designed to address cognition and sedation, a study to evaluate drug abuse potential, a study exploring BAER-101’s cytochrome P450 (CYP) induction potential, a study investigating the co-administration of BAER-101 with an oral contraceptive (OC), and two Phase 2 efficacy studies in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), all performed by AstraZeneca. BAER-101 has been administered as a single dose up to 100 mg and repeated doses up to 50 mg administered once daily (QD) for 7 days or 15 mg twice daily (BID) for 28 days. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center has also completed an investigator-initiated pilot trial in patients with Fragile X Syndrome.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis of proprietary products. We face competition and potential competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. In addition, companies that are active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Many of our competitors have significantly greater capital resources, larger research and development staffs and facilities and greater experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing and marketing than we do. These organizations also compete with us to recruit qualified personnel, attract partners for joint ventures or other collaborations, and license technologies that are competitive with ours. To compete successfully in this industry, we must identify novel and unique drugs or methods of treatment and then complete the development of those drugs as treatments before our competitors do so.

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will compete with a number of opioid and non-opioid drugs that are currently available for the management of acute pain or in development. The most commonly used opioids in the postoperative and acute pain settings are morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl. In 2020, the FDA also approved OLINVYK (oliceridine), an intravenous opioid agonist for the management of moderate to severe acute pain in adults, where the pain is severe enough to require an intravenous opioid and for whom alternative treatments are inadequate. The non-opioid drugs used in this setting include Ofirmev (IV acetaminophen) and IV formulations of NSAIDs such as Dyloject (diclofenac), Toradol (ketorolac), Anjeso (meloxicam) and Caldolor (ibuprofen). In addition, we also expect to compete with agents such as Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), Zynrelef (bupivacaine and meloxicam) and Xaracoll (bupivacaine implant).

In addition to approved products, there are a number of product candidates in development for the management of acute pain. In addition to reformulations and fixed-dose combination products of already available therapies, there are also several novel agents in clinical development such as NTM-001 (Neumentum, Inc.) and CA-008 (Concentric Analgesics, Inc.).

We believe that BAER-101, if approved, will compete with a number of selective and non-selective GABA A receptor agonists. The most commonly used therapies for anxiety and epilepsy are benzodiazepines. Commonly prescribed benzodiazepine therapies are Valium (diazepam), Ativan (lorazepam), Alepam (oxazepam), Alodorm (nitrazepam), Euhypnos (temazepam), Xanax (alprazolam), Clonazepam (klonopin). There are other selective GABA A receptor agonists in clinical development such as darigabat (Cerevel), ENX101 (Engrail Therapeutics), and SAN711 (Saniona).

12

Table of Contents

​

We believe that AJ201, if approved, will compete with a number of programs targeting various neurologic pathways. There are no FDA approved therapies to treat SBMA. Product candidates in development for the treatment of SBMA include NIDO-361 (Nido Biosciences) and AAV gene therapy targeting mutant androgen receptor (University of Pennsylvania). In Japan, Leuprorelin (Takeda) is approved for the treatment of SBMA, but is not approved outside of Japan.

Intellectual Property and Patents

General

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our proprietary technologies, including methods of treatment, to preserve our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents in the United States.

Patents and other proprietary rights are crucial to the development of our business. We will be able to protect our proprietary technologies from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary rights are covered by valid and enforceable patents, are supported by regulatory exclusivity or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. We have several patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, but we cannot guarantee the scope of protection of the issued patents, or that such patents will survive a validity or enforceability challenge, or that any of the pending patent applications will issue as patents.

Generally, patent applications in the United States are maintained in secrecy for a period of 18 months or more. The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Therefore, we cannot predict the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents, or their enforceability. To date, there has been no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents. Third parties or competitors may challenge or circumvent our patents or patent applications, if issued. If our competitors prepare and file patent applications in the United States that claim technology also claimed by us, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In the case of inventorship contests relating to patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, we may have to participate in derivation proceedings initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which could also result in substantial cost. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that before we commercialize any of our products, any related patent may expire or remain in existence for only a short period following commercialization, thus reducing any advantage of the patent. However, the life of a patent covering a product that has been subject to regulatory approval may have the ability be extended through the patent restoration program, although any such extension could still be minimal.

If a patent is issued to a third party containing one or more preclusive or conflicting claims, and those claims are ultimately determined to be valid and enforceable, we may be required to obtain a license under such patent or to develop or obtain alternative technology, neither of which may be possible. In the event of litigation involving a third-party claim, an adverse outcome in the litigation could subject us to significant liabilities to such third party, require us to seek a license for the disputed rights from such third party, and/or require us to cease use of the technology. Moreover, our breach of an existing license or failure to obtain a license to technology required to commercialize our products may seriously harm our business. We also may need to commence litigation to enforce any patents issued to us or to determine the scope and validity of third party proprietary rights. Litigation would involve substantial costs.

IV Tramadol

Pursuant to the License Agreement described above, we have exclusive, worldwide commercialization rights to all Revogenex patents, including patent applications, divisionals, continuations, and continuations-in-part, that are directed to IV tramadol (with the exception of Canada, Central America, or South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV tramadol HCl injections). Currently, this includes U.S. Patent No. 8,895,622 (“the ’622 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,561,195 (“the ’195 patent”), U.S. Patent 9,566,253 (“the ’253 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,962,343 (“the ’343 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,406,122 (“the ’122 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,693,949 (“the ’949 patent”), U.S. Patent 9,968,551 (“the ’551 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,980,900 (“the ’900 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,022,321 (“the ’321 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,537,521 (“the ’521 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,624,842 (“the ’842 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,751,279 (the ‘279 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,729,644 (the ‘644 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,646,433 (“the ‘433 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,617,635 (“the ‘635 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,729,645 (”the ‘645 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,751,277 (“the ‘277 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,751,278 (“the ‘278 patent”), and any related patent applications or future patents, including divisionals, continuations, and continuations-in-part.

13

Table of Contents

​

The ’622 patent is directed to and claims methods of: treating pain by administering a therapeutically effective dose of tramadol intravenously over a time period from 10 minutes to about 45 minutes (i.e., the rate of IV Tramadol administration); treating pain in humans by intravenously administering tramadol in solution at a range of concentrations over the same time period; treating acute pain in humans by administering IV Tramadol over 10 to 30 minutes, such that at least one side effect is reduced; and treating acute postoperative pain by administering tramadol to a human patient intra-operatively at wound closure, or from first demand of analgesia postoperatively, intravenously over a time period from 10 to 30 minutes, in conjunction with administering further tramadol doses post-operatively and administering a different intravenous opioid analgesic which is not tramadol. Further claims of the ’622 patent are directed to various effective doses, including 50 mg. These methods of treatment may provide significant benefits (e.g., reduced side effects) over previously approved methods of administration of IV Tramadol, in which the dose was typically accomplished over a two to three-minute period. Additional claims of the ’622 patent focus on the intravenous administration of tramadol over 15 (±2) minutes, which represents the preferred method of administration that we will be pursuing in obtaining approval of our product through the FDA. The ’622 patent further describes and claims pharmacokinetic properties of our proprietary method of treatment (e.g., Tmax, Cmax and AUC), which are different from the previously achieved pharmacokinetics of prior IV tramadol formulations, such as Tramal® solution for injection (available outside the U.S.). This patent is scheduled to expire on October 20, 2032, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions.

In view of additional prior art discovered after the issuance of the ’622 patent, we have focused efforts on obtaining further patent coverage for the technology. Pursuant to the License Agreement, we have exclusive commercialization rights to all continuation patent filings of the ’622 patent. As a first step, we have prosecuted further claims in multiple continuation patent applications of the ’622 patent, in which extensive searches were conducted and all information known to be material to patentability was brought to the attention of the USPTO. The goal was to obtain further patent claims which patentably differentiate over the prior art. To date, our efforts have resulted in the issuance of the ’195 patent, which issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/550,279 on February 7, 2017; the ’253 patent, which issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/713,775 on February 14, 2017; the ’343 patent, which issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/550,279 on May 8, 2018; and the ’122 patent, which issued from U.S Application Serial No. 15/972,684 on September 10, 2019; all of which are entitled “Intravenous Administration of Tramadol,” and all of which contain the same disclosure (specification) as that of the ’622 patent. The ’195, ’253, ’343 and ’122 patents are scheduled to expire on the same day as the expiration of the ’622 patent (October 20, 2032 absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

The ’253 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain in a human patient by a dose of about 50 mg of IV Tramadol over a time period from 10 minutes to 20 minutes and administering further doses of tramadol at two to six-hour time intervals (each dose being administered intravenously over the same time period).

The ’343 patent includes claims directed to similar subject matter but varies from the ’253 patent in that it specifically claims treating acute post-operative pain. There is also a continuation patent application pending with the USPTO.

The ’195 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain by administering to a human patient a dose of about 50 mg of IV Tramadol over 10 to 20 minutes, and administering further doses of IV Tramadol at two to six hour time intervals to treat pain in said patient, (each dose administered over 10 to 20 minutes), such that the Cmax does not exceed the Cmax of 100 mg oral tramadol administered every six hours for nine doses. The term Cmax refers to the maximum plasma concentration of tramadol achieved during a dosing interval. The claims of the ’195 patent therefore further focus on a goal of the technology — that the blood plasma levels of tramadol resulting from our 50 mg intravenous dose to a patient would not be significantly greater than the blood plasma level of the blood plasma levels of tramadol that are already routinely experienced by patients in the United States who are administered oral doses of 100 mg tramadol. Tramadol hydrochloride is approved in the United States for oral administration in an amount from 50 mg to 100 mg administered every four to six hours, not to exceed 400 mg/day.

The ’122 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain or acute post-operative pain by administering to a human patient undergoing an operation a dose of about 50 mg of tramadol at about 2 to about 6 hour time intervals for at least about 48 hours to treat pain in said patient, wherein each dose of tramadol is administered intravenously over a time period from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, such that the patient is treated for acute postoperative pain. Further claims call for at least one dose of tramadol to be administered over 15 (±2) minutes.

The ’253, ’195, ’343 and ’122 patents include further claims to the treatment method, including also administering one or more doses of an IV opioid analgesic that is not tramadol as rescue medicine to the patient to treat breakthrough pain. The claims are further directed to the use of the treatment method for postoperative pain, and claims in the ’195, ’343, and ’122 patents are also directed to the treatment method resulting in a reduction in a side-effect associated with tramadol therapy selected from nausea, vomiting, or both.

14

Table of Contents

​

The ’278 and ’277 patents are directed to the treatment method, for example, where acute pain is treated.

Other patents are directed to tramadol doses other than about 50 mg. For example, the patents include the ’279 patent and the ’433 patent (about 60 mg tramadol), and the ’521 patent and the ’321 patent (about 25 mg tramadol).

The ’645, ’644, and ’635 patents are directed to various aspects of the treatment method wherein tramadol is co-administered with another analgesic: ketorolac (the ’645 patent), another analgesic selected from NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and another opioid (the ’644 patent), or acetaminophen (the ’635 patent).

We believe that the administration of, e.g., a 50 mg IV Tramadol dose over the prolonged time interval is efficacious and also may advantageously lead to a lower incidence of side effects and increased drug tolerability. Additionally, we believe that the claims of these patents patentably differentiate over all prior art that we are aware of and which was made of record with the USPTO.

The License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to the ’949 patent and any related patent applications or future patents, including divisionals, continuations, and continuations-in-part. The ’949 patent is directed to an IV Tramadol dosing regimen and issued on July 4, 2017. This new patent describes and claims a dosing regimen in which our IV Tramadol product is dosed to a human patient(s) for treating acute pain in a manner such that the plasma levels obtained (including but not limited to Cmax and AUC) are very similar to treatment with a 100 mg oral dose of tramadol hydrochloride to a human patient(s) every six hours at steady state. This is accomplished by intravenously administering a first dose of tramadol 50 mg to a human patient; then intravenously administering a second dose of tramadol 50 mg about 2 hours after the first dose; intravenously administering a third dose of tramadol 50 mg about 2 hours after the second dose; and thereafter intravenously administering doses of tramadol 50 mg at dosage intervals of about 4 hours. It is believed that this dosing regimen may provide advantages over the commercially available oral doing regimen, and further allows the patient to be stepped down from the IV Tramadol dosing regimen to an oral dosing regimen with less concern about deleterious effects which might occur from a switch from IV to oral analgesic medicine (e.g., as would be the case where the switch to an oral version of the drug provides a much different Cmax and AUC than the IV dose provides at steady state). This new dosing regimen is the result of considerable experimentation by us, and a prior art search has not revealed any similar dosing regimen being used or published with respect to IV Tramadol infusions. The patent term of the ’949 patent is scheduled to expire on May 24, 2036, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions.

A continuation of the ’949 patent issued as the ’551 patent on May 18, 2018, claiming the same dosing regimen except that it includes claims that specify that the mean Cmax after the third administered dose of tramadol is similar to the mean Cmax at steady-state for a dosing regimen of 100 mg tramadol HCl administered orally every 6 hours, and/or specifies pharmacokinetic parameters for Cmax and/or AUC at steady-state. The ’551 patent is scheduled to expire on the same day as the ’949 patent (May 24, 2036, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

The ’900 patent (a continuation-in-part of the ’949 patent) issued on May 29, 2018 and is directed to the same dosing regimen, except that it includes claims that specify the pharmacokinetic parameters after the third administered dose of tramadol. Further continuation patent applications are pending for (i) the 50 mg dosing regimen to human patients experiencing acute pain or acute post-operative pain; (ii) the 50 mg dosing regimen directed to administering a first dose of tramadol 50 mg to a human patient and thereafter intravenously administering additional doses of tramadol to the human patient(s) in an amount of about 50 mg tramadol at dosage intervals of about 4 hours, except that a second dose is intravenously administered as a loading dose at a shortened interval as compared to the dosage interval of about 4 hours, and (iii) administering the 50 mg dosing regimen as described with an NSAID as well. The ’900 patent is scheduled to expire on the same day as the ’949 patent (May 24, 2036, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

The License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to continuation applications of the ’949, ’551, and ’900 patents (and related applications) that are currently pending at the USPTO. This includes, but is not limited to, U.S. Application Serial No. 15/976,503 (“the ’503 application”), a continuation of the ’551 patent and filed on May 10, 2018; U.S. Application Serial No. 16/223,522 (“the ’522 application”), a continuation of the ’199 application and filed on December 18, 2018; U.S. Application Serial No. 15/986,199 (“the ’199 application”), a continuation of the ’900 patent and filed on May 22, 2018; and U.S. Application Serial No. 16/223,556 (“the ’556 application”), a continuation of the ’503 application and filed on December 18, 2018. The ’503, ’522, and ’199 applications are directed to various dosing regimens for intravenous administration of a 50 mg dose of tramadol. The ’556 application is directed to various dosing regimens for intravenous administration of a 60 mg dose of tramadol.

The License Agreement further grants us exclusive commercialization rights to new patents/patent applications pending with the USPTO directed to the intravenous administration of tramadol co-administered with other analgesics. Currently, these patent applications include U.S. Application Serial No. 16/269,213 (“the ’213 application”, now the ’279 patent), a continuation of the ’556

15

Table of Contents

​

application and filed February 6, 2019; U.S. Application Serial No. 16/269,124 (“the ’124 application” now U.S. Patent No. 10,729,644), a continuation of the ’522 application and filed on February 6, 2019; U.S. Application Serial No. 16/375,363 (“the ’363 application”, now the ’635 patent), a continuation of the ’213 application and filed on April 4, 2019 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,751,279); and U.S. Application Serial No. 16/376,382 (“the ’382 application”, now the ’645 patent), a continuation of the ’213 application and filed on April 5, 2019. The ’213 application is directed to intravenously administering a first dose of 60 mg of tramadol, later administering doses every 6 hours (except for the second dose, which is a loading dose administered in a shorter time period), and also administering another analgesic. The ’124 application (now the ’644 patent) is similar, but it claims a dosage of 50 mg. The ’363 application is also similar to the ’213 application, in that it claims 60 mg, but it varies in that it specifies acetaminophen as the other analgesic. The ’382 application is similar to the ’124 application, in that it claims 50 mg, but it varies in that it specifies ketorolac as the other analgesic.

The License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to the ’321 patent, which is directed to an IV Tramadol dosing regimen and issued on July 17, 2018. This new patent describes and claims a dosing regimen in which our IV Tramadol product is dosed to a human patient(s) for treating acute pain by intravenously administering a first dose of tramadol 25 mg to a human patient; then intravenously administering a second dose of tramadol 25 mg about 2 hours after the first dose; intravenously administering a third dose of tramadol 25 mg about 2 hours after the second dose; and thereafter intravenously administering doses of tramadol 25 mg at dosage intervals of about 4 hours. The ’321 patent is scheduled to expire on April 13, 2037, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions.

A continuation of the ’321 patent issued as the ’521 patent on January 21, 2020, claiming the same dosage as the ’321 patent (25 mg), but over dosing intervals of about 4 hours, where the second dose is intravenously administered as a loading dose at a shortened interval as compared to the interval of about 4 hours. It further claims this method of treatment, where the at least one side effect, selected from nausea, vomiting, and seizure, is reduced. The ’521 patent is scheduled to expire on the same day as the ’321 patent (April 13, 2037, absent possible regulatory patent term extensions).

With the exception of 50 mg and 100 mg dosages of IV tramadol HCl in Canada, Central America, and South America, the License Agreement also grants us the exclusive commercialization rights to certain foreign patents and patent applications, including PCT applications. With the exception of the territory constraint listed above, we have the exclusive commercialization rights to PCT Application No. US/2012/033304 and any related patents or patent applications.

In sum, we believe that our patent filings will prevent third parties from marketing a generic version of our product without infringing claims of the patent(s) we are seeking. Further, we have conducted clearance searches of U.S. issued and foreign patents, and have not identified any bars to the commercialization of our tramadol technology.

BAER-101

In December 2019, Baergic licensed intellectual property related to BAER-101 (formerly known as AZD7325) from AstraZeneca Plc (“AZ”) and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (“CCHMC”) relating to AZD7325 including four issued U.S. patents and related foreign patents. Two of the issued U.S. patents claim the compound itself, related cinnoline compounds, and pharmaceutical preparations thereof and related foreign patents including Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Two additional US patents claim methods of use of the compound as it relates to an orphan disease. The compound-related patents may first begin to expire as early as December 2026 and the method of use patents may first begin to expire as early as 2036.

AJ201

In February 2023, we licensed intellectual property rights pertaining to the molecule known as JM17 which underlies the final product form AJ201. The intellectual property licensed includes issued patents in the US relating to the compound itself, and methods of use for treating various medical conditions associated with the androgen receptor. The compound-related patent may first begin to expire as early as 2029 and the method patent as early as 2028. There is also an additional issued patent relating to methods of treating various neurodegenerative disorders which may first begin to expire in 2040.

Other Intellectual Property Rights

We depend upon trademarks, trade secrets, and continuing technological advances to develop and maintain our competitive position. We also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors,

16

Table of Contents

​

consultants and other contractors. This knowledge and experience we call “know-how.” To help protect our proprietary know-how which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all employees, scientific advisors, consultants, collaborators and other contractors, upon commencement of a relationship with us, to enter into confidentiality agreements, which prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, in the case of parties other than our research and development collaborators, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed in connection with their relationship with us. These agreements may not, however, provide protection for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized disclosure of such information.

Supply and Manufacturing

The chemical name for tramadol hydrochloride is cis-2-[(dimethyl amino) methyl]-1-(3-methyoxyphenyl) cyclohexanol hydrochloride. Unless otherwise specified, the term tramadol refers to the racemic mixture of the (±) cis isomers. IV Tramadol (Tramadol Hydrochloride Injection) is a sterile solution formulation of tramadol HCl 50 mg/1 mL, for IV administration. Each unit of IV Tramadol consists of glass ampoules of 50 mg of tramadol HCl and sodium acetate as buffering agent in 1 mL of water for injection. The final drug product is stable at room temperature.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop or own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. Currently, we have one manufacturer, Polpharma, who subcontracts several activities to another manufacturer, to provide us clinical and commercial supply of IV Tramadol in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements. We also may plan to qualify a backup manufacturer. We will be obligated to purchase a minimum amount of final packaged drug product from our current manufacturer over the course of five years commencing upon the approval of our NDA for IV Tramadol. We will pay a fixed per dose unit fee to our current manufacturer in addition to a low single digit royalty on net sales revenue and a milestone payment amount of $2.0 million upon FDA approval of IV Tramadol.

We and our manufacturers, as well as their key subcontractors, are and will be subject to extensive government regulation in connection with the manufacture of any pharmaceutical product, including ongoing periodic and unannounced inspections by the FDA, the DEA and corresponding state, European and other foreign agencies to ensure strict compliance with CGMPs and other applicable state, federal and foreign regulations. We do not have control over third party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards, other than through contractual obligations and audit oversight. If they are deemed out of compliance with CGMPs, product recalls could result, inventory could be destroyed, production could be stopped and supplies could be delayed or otherwise disrupted.

If we need to change manufacturers after commercialization, the FDA and some corresponding foreign regulatory agencies must approve these new manufacturers in advance, which will involve testing and additional inspections to ensure compliance with CGMPs and other FDA regulations and standards and may require significant lead times and delay. Furthermore, switching manufacturers may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited. It may be difficult or impossible for us to find a replacement manufacturer quickly or on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

Government and Industry Regulations

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

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. Since IV Tramadol is an opioid, such drugs are also regulated by the DEA as controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, even at the drug development stage. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approval and maintaining subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during product development, the approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, voluntary product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions,

17

Table of Contents

​

fines, consent decrees, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil and criminal penalties. Any regulatory, compliance or enforcement action by any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our products, or our Company. If we fail to manufacture IV Tramadol in sufficient quantities and at acceptable quality and pricing levels, fail to comply with additional DEA requirements related to controlled substances, or fail to fully comply with CGMP regulations, we may face delays in the commercialization of IV Tramadol or be unable to meet market demand, and may be unable to generate potential revenues.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through one of FDA’s available drug approval processes before they may be legally marketed in the United States – (1) an NDA submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; (2) an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) under section 505(j); or (3) a new drug application submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA (505(b)(2) application). We have already submitted our first 505(b)(2) application and intend to utilize the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway for any additional product candidates. Development and approval of drugs generally involves the following:

The nonclinical testing, clinical trials and review process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. The data required to support an NDA are generated in two distinct developmental stages: nonclinical and clinical. The nonclinical development stage generally involves synthesizing the active component, developing the formulation and control procedures and determining the manufacturing process, as well as carrying out non-human toxicology, pharmacology and drug metabolism studies in the laboratory, which may support subsequent clinical testing in humans. In the case of documentation to support a 505(b)(2) NDA, this nonclinical data may be referenced in literature or the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a listed drug. The sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers and patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB for each institution where the trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

18

Table of Contents

​

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the management of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Before approval, progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important rate increase of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or the use of the drug raises any safety concerns. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose specified clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. However, there are evolving rules and increasing requirements for publication of all trial-related information, and it is possible that data and other information from trials involving drugs that never garner approval could require disclosure in the future.

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

NDA and FDA Review Process

The results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including extensive information on manufacturing and drug composition and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a drug is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with CGMPs to assure and preserve

19

Table of Contents

​

the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be legally marketed in the United States.

Under the PDUFA as amended in 2017, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s current fee schedule for fiscal year (FY) 2023, effective through September 30, 2023, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, is $3,242,026. Clinical data, as interpreted by the FDA to assess fees under PDUFA, include (1) study reports or literature reports of what are explicitly or implicitly represented by the applicant to be adequate and well-controlled trials for safety or effectiveness or (2) reports of comparative activity (other than bioequivalence and bioavailability studies), immunogenicity, or efficacy, where those reports are necessary to support a claim of comparable clinical effect. The term does not include bioequivalence and bioavailability studies submitted in support of an NDA. PDUFA also imposes an annual Prescription Drug Program Fee ($393,933 per approved prescription drug product for FY 2023) for establishments named as the applicant in a human drug application. An establishment is not to be assessed more than five (5) prescription drug program fees in a given fiscal year. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business.

The FDA performs an administrative review of an NDA before accepting it for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the applications. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth scientific and technical review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an NDA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with CGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with CGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product to specifications. The FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation regarding whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers them carefully when making decisions. NDAs submitted under Section 505(b)(2) are typically not referred to an Advisory Panel for consideration unless new safety information is revealed in the review cycle. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA, and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial, and other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will approve a product candidate for marketing, and the sponsor may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or it may condition approval on changes to the proposed labeling. The FDA also may condition approval on the development of adequate controls and specifications for manufacturing and a commitment to conduct post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the potential effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and efficacy.

20

Table of Contents

​

The FDA may also place other conditions on approval including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Section 505(b)(2) Regulatory Approval Pathway

Section 505(b)(2) was added to the Act by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA provides an alternate regulatory pathway for approval of a new drug by allowing the FDA to rely on data not developed by the applicant. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where one or more of the investigations relied upon by the applicant for approval was not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely upon published literature and/or the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved drug already on the market. Approval or submission of a 505(b)(2) application, like those for abbreviated new drugs, or ANDAs, may be delayed because of patent and/or exclusivity rights that apply to the previously approved drug.

Under the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, the applicant may reduce some of the burdens of developing a full clinical program by relying on investigations not conducted by the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, such as prior investigations involving the listed drug. In such cases, some clinical trials may not be required or may be otherwise limited.

A 505(b)(2) application may be submitted for a new chemical entity (NCE), when some part of the data necessary for approval is derived from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and when the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Such data are typically derived from published studies, rather than FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness of a previously approved drug. For changes to a previously approved drug however, an applicant may rely on the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness of the approved drug, coupled with information needed to support the change from the approved drug, such as new studies conducted by the applicant or published data. When based on an approved drug, the 505(b)(2) drug may be approved for all of the indications permitted for the approved drug, as well as any other indication supported by additional data.

Section 505(b)(2) applications also may be entitled to marketing exclusivity if supported by appropriate data and information. As discussed in more detail below, three-year new data exclusivity may be granted to the 505(b)(2) application if one or more clinical investigations conducted in support of the application, other than bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, were essential to the approval and conducted or sponsored by the applicant. Five years of marketing exclusivity may be granted if the application is for an NCE, and pediatric exclusivity is likewise available.

Orange Book Listing and Paragraph IV Certification

For NDA submissions, including 505(b)(2) applications, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents with claims that cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval, each of the patents listed in the application is published in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the Orange Book. Any applicant who subsequently files an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application that references a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV certification.

If an applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the approved drug and the patent owner once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA holder or patent owner may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the earlier of 30 months from the date of the lawsuit, the applicant’s successful defense of the suit, or expiration of the patent.

21

Table of Contents

​

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation in which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit an NDA for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric trial(s) that the sponsor plans to conduct, including objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such information and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric trials. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP, but the sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and other clinical development programs.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval, the company and the new product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, which include monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include prohibitions on the promotion of the drugs for unapproved, or “off-label” uses. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label treatments, manufacturers may not promote such non-FDA approved uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use on an on-going basis. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes to indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a supplemental NDA or new NDA, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials.

The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with CGMPs. These regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from CGMPs. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with CGMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with CGMPs. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to CGMPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including voluntary recalls and product seizures.

Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrections to advertising or communications to doctors and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. New government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

The FDCA provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, for a drug product that contains a previously approved NCE if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, were essential to the application’s approval (e.g., for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug). This three-year exclusivity for new data covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication. Furthermore, this exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the nonclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

22

Table of Contents

​

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States, which, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protections or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request.” The FDA issues a written request for pediatric clinical trials before approval of an NDA only where it determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population.

DEA Regulation

Because IV Tramadol is subject to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) we must comply with various statutory requirements set forth by the CSA, as amended, and its implementing regulations as enforced by the DEA. The CSA imposes various registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, procurement and manufacturing quotas, labeling and packaging requirements, security controls, prescription and order form requirements and restrictions on prescription refills for certain kinds of pharmaceutical products. A principal factor for determining the particular requirements of the CSA applicable to a product, if any, is its actual or potential abuse profile, which is classified into a DEA schedule. A product may be listed as a Schedule I, II, III, IV or V controlled substance, with Schedule I presenting the highest perceived risk of abuse and Schedule V presenting the least. For example, Schedule I controlled substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The active ingredient in IV Tramadol is classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances and less stringent requirements for Schedules III, IV, and V. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as vaults and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because the active ingredient in IV Tramadol is currently regulated as a Schedule IV controlled substances, it will not be subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme.

To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

In addition to federal scheduling, some drugs may be subject to state-controlled substance regulation and thus more extensive requirements than those determined by the DEA and FDA.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, the DEA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

We will also be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy

23

Table of Contents

​

regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

The ACA broadened the reach of the fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-7b. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As noted above, the federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment from federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under the federal False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for such violations could include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, mandatory civil penalties between $10,781 and $21,563 for each separate false claim, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and the potential implication of various federal criminal statutes. Private individuals also have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act, or qui tam actions, and certain states have enacted laws based on the federal False Claims Act.

24

Table of Contents

​

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state health care legislation and regulations, including any changes, repeal, or judicial invalidation of some or all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and further changes in the law or regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Employees

As of December 31, 2022, we had 2 full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union and we consider our employee relations to be good.

Corporate Information

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2015. Our executive offices are located at 111 Kane Concourse, Suite 301 Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154. Our telephone number is (781) 652-4500, and our email address is info@avenuetx.com.

We maintain a website with the address www.avenuetx.com. We make available free of charge through our Internet website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. We are not including the information on our website as a part of, nor incorporating it by reference into, this report. Additionally, the SEC maintains a website that contains annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other information that issuers (including us) file electronically with the SEC. The SEC’s website address is http://www.sec.gov.

​

Item 1A.           Risk Factors

Our business, results of operations and financial condition and the industry in which we operate are subject to various risks. You should carefully consider the risks described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Form 10-K, before making an investment decision. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or other factors not perceived by us to present significant risks to our business at this time also may impair our business operations.

Risks Pertaining to Our Business and Industry

We currently have no drug products for sale, but we are developing three drug product candidates, IV Tramadol, BAER-101 and AJ201. We are dependent on the success of our product candidates, and cannot guarantee that these product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized.

Our business success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval to successfully commercialize, market and sell our product candidates, and any significant delays in obtaining approval to commercialize, market and sell our product candidates will have a substantial adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

25

Table of Contents

​

If the applications for any of our product candidates are approved, our ability to generate revenues from such product candidates will depend on our ability to:

We may not receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, or their approvals may be delayed, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Our product candidates and other future product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to premarket approval and comprehensive regulation by the FDA, DEA and other regulatory agencies in the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates will prevent us from commercializing our product candidates. We have not received approval to market our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in conducting preclinical and clinical studies and filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third party contract research organizations as well as consultants and vendors to assist us in the process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities.

Our product candidates must meet FDA’s standards for safety and efficacy, but may be determined not to be effective, to be only moderately effective, to not be safe for use in its intended population, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if approval is granted at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in the regulatory review process for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of any of our product candidates or any future product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired, thereby negatively impacting our business, financial condition and results of operations.

26

Table of Contents

​

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, the approval of the indication for any of our product candidates by such regulatory authorities may, among other things, be more limited than we request. Such regulatory authorities may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, 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. These regulatory authorities may also require the label to contain warnings, contraindications, or precautions that limit the commercialization of that product. Our third-party suppliers may be subject to inspections by the FDA that identifies deficiencies in their manufacturing facilities and concludes they are not operating in compliance with CGMP requirements, which in turn, may force us to identify, qualify and rely upon additional suppliers. Any of these scenarios could compromise the commercial prospects for our product candidates, or any future product candidates.

If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.

If our product candidates or future product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In our industry, many compounds that initially showed promise in early-stage testing have later been found to cause undesirable side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In the event that our preclinical or clinical trials reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects, our trials could be delayed, suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development or deny approval of our product candidates or future product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The FDA could also issue a letter requesting additional data or information prior to making a final decision regarding whether or not to approve a product candidate. The number of requests for additional data or information issued by the FDA in recent years has increased, and resulted in substantial delays in the approval of several new drugs. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates or future product candidates could also result in the inclusion of serious risk information in our product labeling, application of burdensome post-market requirements, or the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications, and in turn prevent us from commercializing and generating revenues from the sale of our product candidates. Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial and could result in potential product liability claims.

For example, some of the adverse events observed in the IV Tramadol clinical trials completed to date include nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, sweating, vomiting, dry mouth, somnolence and hypotension. With respect to BAER-101, some of the adverse events observed in clinical trials completed to-date include dizziness, somnolence, headache, and euphoric mood. With respect to AJ201, some of the adverse events observed in clinical trials completed to-date include nausea, diarrhea, headache, and abdominal distension.

Additionally, if one or more of our current or future product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by this product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining marketing approval and market acceptance of our product candidates or future product candidates or could substantially increase our commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its sale.

27

Table of Contents

​

There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully integrate Baergic or develop BAER-101 or AJ201.

There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient capital resources to adequately integrate Baergic or develop BAER-101 or AJ201. In addition, as with any of our product candidates, we are subject to many external third party risks including regulatory and manufacturing. We could experience financial or other setbacks if our integration of BAER-101 or AJ201 encounters unanticipated problems, including problems related to execution, integration or underperformance relative to prior expectations. Our management may not be able to successfully integrate any acquired business into our operations or maintain our standards, controls and policies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Consequently, any acquisition we complete may not result in long-term benefits to us or we may not be able to further develop the acquired business in the manner we anticipated. We may need to rely on Fortress to provide administrative and other support, including financial reporting and internal controls, and other transition services to Baergic following our acquisition for a period of time. The failure of the Company to receive such support in a manner that is acceptable to us, could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and commercial, scientific and clinical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our employees, consultants, or third-party partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including those that result in noncompliance with certain regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees, consultants or third-party partners could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, 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 wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee, consultant or third-party misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation, as well as civil and criminal liability. The precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other civil and/or criminal sanctions.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. Although we believe that the safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities.

28

Table of Contents

​

We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We are a “smaller reporting company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are a smaller reporting company, and we will remain a smaller reporting company until the fiscal year following the determination that our voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates is more than $250 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenues are more than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates is more than $700 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter. Smaller reporting companies are able to provide simplified executive compensation disclosure, are exempt from the auditor attestation requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and have certain other reduced disclosure obligations, including, among other things, being required to provide only two years of audited financial statements and not being required to provide selected financial data, supplemental financial information or risk factors.

We have elected to take advantage of certain of the reduced reporting obligations. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on 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 reduced or more volatile.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing standards and, as a result, qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing standards. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq, including (i) the requirement that a majority of the Board of Directors consist of independent directors, (ii) the requirement that we have a nominating and corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities and (iii) the requirement that we have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities. We have in the past relied on, and intend to continue to rely on, some or all of these exemptions.

Accordingly, you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

Certain of our directors currently serve, and in the past, certain officers and directors have served in similar roles with our parent company, affiliates, related parties and other parties with whom we transact business; ongoing and future relationships and transactions between these parties could result in conflicts of interest.

We sometimes share directors and/or officers with certain of our parent company, affiliates, related parties or other companies with which we transact business, and such arrangements could create conflicts of interest in the future, including with respect to the allocation of corporate opportunities. While we believe that we have put in place policies and procedures to identify such conflicts and that any existing agreements that may give rise to such conflicts and any such policies or procedures were negotiated at arm’s length in conformity with fiduciary duties, such conflicts of interest may nonetheless arise. The existence and consequences of such potential conflicts could expose us to lost profits, claims by our investors and creditors, violations of Nasdaq’s director and audit committee independence rules and harm to our results of operations.

29

Table of Contents

​

Risks Pertaining to Our Finances

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We have a limited operating history. We have focused primarily on in-licensing and developing IV Tramadol, with the goal of supporting regulatory approval for this product candidate. We also recently acquired two new product candidates, BAER-101 and AJ201, which we are developing. We have incurred losses since our inception in February 2015.

These losses, among other things, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future. We also do not anticipate that we will achieve profitability for a period of time after generating material revenues, if ever. If we are unable to generate revenues, we will not become profitable and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. In addition, the Company cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all.

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

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any revenue from our development stage product, and we do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in our value could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

30

Table of Contents

​

Our short operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business and prospects.

We were incorporated on February 9, 2015, and until our acquisition of Baergic had only been conducting operations with respect to IV Tramadol since February 17, 2015. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to expand our capabilities to support commercial activities and the recent acquisitions of AJ201 and BAER-101. We may not be successful in adding such capabilities.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any past quarterly period as an indication of future operating performance.

There is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing.

Our audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2022 have been prepared under the assumption that we will continue as a going concern for the next twelve months. As of December 31, 2022, we had cash and cash equivalents of $6.7 million and an accumulated deficit of $80.6 million. We do not believe that our cash and cash equivalents are sufficient for the next twelve months. As a result of our financial condition and other factors described herein, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our ability to continue as a going concern will depend on our ability to obtain additional funding, as to which no assurances can be given. We continue to analyze various alternatives, including potentially obtaining lines of credit, debt or equity financings or other arrangements. Our future success depends on our ability to raise capital and/or implement the various strategic alternatives discussed above. We cannot be certain that these initiatives or raising additional capital, whether through selling additional debt or equity securities or obtaining a line of credit or other loan, will be available to us or, if available, will be on terms acceptable to us. If we issue additional securities after the closing of this offering to raise funds, these securities may have rights, preferences, or privileges senior to those of our common stock, and our current shareholders may experience dilution. If we are unable to obtain funds when needed or on acceptable terms, we may be required to curtail our current development programs, cut operating costs, forego future development and other opportunities or even terminate our operations.

We do not have any products that are approved for commercial sale and therefore do not expect to generate any revenues from product sales in the foreseeable future, if ever.

We have not generated any product related revenues to date. To obtain revenues from sales of our product candidates, we must succeed, either alone or with third parties, in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and marketing products with commercial potential. We may never succeed in these activities, and we may not generate sufficient revenues to continue our business operations or achieve profitability.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise the necessary additional capital, we may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to significantly increase our spending to advance the clinical development and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates and launch and commercialize any additional product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, including building our own commercial organizations to address certain markets. Even after the completion of future offerings, we may require additional capital for the further development and potential commercialization of our product candidates, as well as to fund our other operating expenses and capital expenditures, and cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to raise funds to complete the development of our products.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. We may also seek collaborators for product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available. Any of these events could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

31

Table of Contents

​

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

In order to carry out our business plan and implement our strategy, we may need to obtain additional financing and may choose to raise additional funds through strategic collaborations, licensing arrangements, public or private equity or debt financing, bank lines of credit, asset sales, government grants, or other arrangements. We cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us or at all. Furthermore, any additional equity or equity-related financing may be dilutive to our stockholders, and debt or equity financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants and significant interest costs. If we obtain funding through a strategic collaboration or licensing arrangement, we may be required to relinquish our rights to our product candidates or marketing territories.

Our inability to raise capital when needed would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause our stock value to decline or require that we wind down our operations altogether.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, grants and license and development agreements in connection with any collaborations. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market any potential product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

32

Table of Contents

​

We have in the past failed to satisfy applicable listing standards of the Nasdaq Capital Market and could fail to satisfy those requirements again in the future, which could result in our common stock being delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market.

Currently our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market. During 2021 and 2022, we received notification from the Listing Qualifications Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) informing us of certain listing deficiencies related to the minimum required market value of listed securities, minimum stockholders’ equity and minimum bid price listing requirements, which led to the issuance of delisting notices. Although we have since cured these deficiencies and our common stock continues to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market, it is possible that we could fall out of compliance again in the future. If we fail to maintain compliance with any Nasdaq listing requirements, our common stock could be delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market. This could severely limit the liquidity of our common stock and your ability to sell our securities on the secondary market. Delisting from the Nasdaq could adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through the public or private sale of equity securities, would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and would negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock. Delisting could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities. If our common stock is delisted by the Nasdaq the price of our common stock may decline and our common stock may be eligible to trade on the OTC Bulletin Board, another over-the-counter quotation system, or on the pink sheets where an investor may find it more difficult to dispose of their common stock or obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of our common stock. Further, if we are delisted, we would incur additional costs under requirements of state “blue sky” laws in connection with any sales of our securities. These requirements could severely limit the market liquidity of our common stock and the ability of our stockholders to sell our common stock in the secondary market.

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

If any of our product candidates are approved and our contract manufacturer fails to produce the product in the volumes that we require on a timely basis, to produce the product according to the applicable quality standards and requirements, or to comply with stringent regulations applicable to pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, we may face delays in the commercialization of that product candidate, lose potential revenues or be unable to meet market demand.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls, and the use of specialized processing equipment. We have entered into a development and supply agreement for the completion of pre-commercialization manufacturing development activities and the manufacture of commercial supplies of IV Tramadol. Any termination or disruption of this relationship may materially harm our business and financial condition, and impact any commercialization efforts for this product candidate.

In order to meet anticipated demand for IV Tramadol, if this product candidate is approved, we currently have one manufacturer to provide us clinical and commercial supply of IV Tramadol in accordance with the CGMP requirements. We also may plan to qualify a backup manufacturer, in order to ensure an alternative source and to mitigate any potential supply issues. We have sufficient drug substance for BAER-101 on hand to execute our planned near-term studies, and are in process of identifying future manufacturers. AnnJi, from whom we license the intellectual property underlying AJ201, has committed to provide us with limited supplies of this product candidate, but we will need to secure longer-term manufacturing sources to complete development and commercialization of this product. Failure to secure such sources could have a material adverse effect on our ability to pursue these product candidates.

All of our contract manufacturers must comply with strictly enforced federal, state and, where applicable, foreign regulations, including CGMP requirements enforced by the FDA through its inspectional authority over facilities under the FDCA, as well requirements for controlled substance handling and security requirements enforced by DEA, and while we exercise oversight of our suppliers, we have limited direct control over their compliance with these regulations, as reflected in day-to-day operations. Any failure to comply with applicable regulations may result in fines and civil penalties, suspension of production, suspension or delay in product approval, product seizure or recall, or withdrawal of product approval, and would limit the availability of our product. Any quality or compliance issue, manufacturing defect or error discovered after products have been produced and distributed could result in even more significant consequences, including costly recall procedures, re-stocking costs, damage to our reputation and potential for product liability claims.

If the commercial manufacturers upon whom we rely to manufacture our product candidates we may in-license, fail to deliver sufficient commercial quantities on a timely basis at commercially reasonable prices, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and we would lose potential revenues, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

33

Table of Contents

​

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials or complying with applicable regulatory requirements.

We have relied on third party contract research organizations and clinical research organizations to conduct some of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials for IV Tramadol and may do so for BAER-101, AJ201 and any other future product candidates. We may continue to rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials. The agreements with these third parties might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, that could delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our legal and regulatory product development responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial and for ensuring that our preclinical studies are conducted in accordance with good laboratory practice, or “GLP”, as appropriate. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or “GCPs”, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our clinical research organizations fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable or unacceptable, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted using products manufactured and produced in accordance with CGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

The third parties with whom we have contracted to help perform our preclinical studies or clinical trials may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our preclinical studies or clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, potentially successfully commercialize our product candidates.

If any of our relationships with these third-party contract research organizations or clinical research organizations terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative contract research organizations or clinical research organizations or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional contract research organizations or clinical research organizations involves additional cost and requires extensive training and management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new contract research organization or clinical research organization commences work. As a result, delays could occur, which could compromise our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our contract research organizations or clinical research organizations, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and expect to continue to do so for potential commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our potential product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not own any manufacturing facilities or employ any manufacturing personnel. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture, once any of our product candidates receives marketing approval. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or potential commercialization efforts.

34

Table of Contents

​

We may be unable to establish any agreements with such third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including, but not necessarily limited to:

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates is subject to registration requirements, and inspection by the FDA. A pre-approval inspection may be conducted after the submission of an application to the FDA. Although we will have oversight over our suppliers and manufacturers, we do not directly control the manufacturing operations and processes at these facilities, and therefore rely on, our contract manufacturers to ensure full compliance with CGMP regulations with respect to the day-to-day operations related to the manufacture of our product candidates. Third-party manufacturers may, following an inspection, be subject to a Form FDA-483 or similar inspectional findings, or a Warning Letter, or may not otherwise be able to comply with the CGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. The failure of our third-party manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations directly impacts our compliance and could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products.

Any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There may be a limited number of manufacturers that both operate under CGMP regulations and are capable of manufacturing for us. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. We may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any replacement manufacturers.

The DEA restricts the importation of a controlled substance finished drug product when the same substance is commercially available in the United States, which could reduce the number of potential alternative manufacturers for IV Tramadol.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to potentially commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or potential commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

35

Table of Contents

​

We rely on clinical data and results obtained by third parties that could ultimately prove to be inaccurate or unreliable.

As part of our strategy to mitigate development risk, we seek to develop product candidates with a validated mechanism of action, and we utilize biomarkers to assess potential clinical efficacy early in the development process. This strategy necessarily relies upon clinical data and other results obtained by third parties that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or unreliable. Further, such clinical data and results may be based on products or product candidates that are significantly different from our product candidates or future product candidates. If the third-party data and results we rely upon prove to be inaccurate, unreliable or not applicable to our product candidates or future product candidate, we could make inaccurate assumptions and conclusions about our product candidates and our research and development efforts could be compromised and called into question during the review or any marketing applications we submit.

Risks Pertaining to Regulatory Approval Process

We may not receive regulatory approval for IV Tramadol, or our approval may be significantly delayed due to scientific or regulatory reasons.

While we acquired BAER-101 in connection with our acquisition of Baergic, we continue to pursue regulatory approval for IV Tramadol. However, in light of recently disclosed developments, there is doubt about our ability to obtain regulatory approval for IV Tramadol. In December 2019, we submitted an NDA for IV Tramadol and received the First CRL from the FDA in October 2020. In February 2021, we resubmitted the NDA for IV Tramadol. The FDA assigned a PDUFA goal date of April 12, 2021 for the resubmitted NDA for IV Tramadol. On June 14, 2021, we announced that we had received the Second CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA for IV Tramadol. We submitted a formal dispute resolution request (“FDRR”) with the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA on July 27, 2021. On August 26, 2021, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA in response to the FDRR submitted on July 27, 2021. On August 31, 2021, we submitted an FDRR with the Office of New Drugs of the FDA. On October 21, 2021, we received a written response from the Office of New Drugs of the FDA stating that the OND needs additional input from an Advisory Committee in order to reach a decision on the FDRR. On February 15, 2022, we had our Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA. In the final part of the public meeting, the Advisory Committee voted yes or no on the following question: “Has the Applicant submitted adequate information to support the position that the benefits of their product outweigh the risks for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in an inpatient setting?” The results were 8 yes votes and 14 no votes. On March 18, 2022, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of New Drugs in response to the FDRR.

Following the receipt of the Appeal Denied Letter, we submitted a Type A Meeting Request and related briefing document to the FDA on June 17, 2022. The meeting was granted by the Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products (“DAAAP”) on June 27, 2022, and scheduled for August 9, 2022. We submitted a briefing document presenting a study design that we believe has the potential to address the concerns around the safety risk of IV Tramadol in combination with other opioid analgesics for the management of moderate-to-moderately-severe pain in adults in a medically supervised healthcare setting that was discussed in detail at the previously disclosed Advisory Committee meeting on February 15, 2022 and in the Appeal Denied letter received on March 18, 2022.

The meeting on August 9, 2022 was a collaborative discussion on the study design and potential path forward. At the meeting, we presented a study design for a single safety clinical trial that we believe could address the concerns regarding risks related to opioid stacking. The FDA stated that the proposed study design appears reasonable and agreed on various study design aspects with the expectation that additional feedback would be provided to us upon review of a more detailed study protocol. We intend to incorporate the FDA’s suggestions from the meeting minutes and submit a detailed study protocol that could form the basis for the submission of a complete response to the second Complete Response Letter for IV Tramadol.

Following the Type A Meeting, we submitted a subsequent request to the FDA and were granted a Type C Meeting to discuss a proposed study protocol to assess the risk of respiratory depression related to opioid stacking on IV Tramadol relative to an approved opioid analgesic. If the FDA does not approve, or significantly delays the approval of, IV Tramadol, it could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Even if one or more of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, which may not occur, it will remain subject to substantial regulatory scrutiny.

Our product candidates and any other product candidates we may license or acquire will also be subject to ongoing regulatory and compliance requirements, including regular inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements relate to, among others, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market

36

Table of Contents

​

information and reports, registration and listing requirements, ongoing CGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping of the drug.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance programs to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and off-label information and if we do not market our products for only their approved indications and on-label information, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing as well as false claims liability. Violations of the FDCA relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our product, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

The FDA’s policies, as well as policies of the DEA, who has jurisdiction over controlled substances and opioids, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidate. 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.

We will need to obtain FDA approval of any proposed product brand names, and any failure or delay associated with such approval may adversely impact our business.

A pharmaceutical product candidate cannot be marketed in the United States or many other countries until we have completed a rigorous and extensive regulatory review processes, including obtaining the approval of a brand name. Any brand names we intend to use for our product candidates will require approval from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “USPTO”. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product brand names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a product brand name if it believes the name inappropriately implies medical claims. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product brand name, we may be

37

Table of Contents

​

required to adopt an alternative brand name for our product candidate. If we adopt an alternative brand name, we would lose the benefit of our existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product brand name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. We may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our ability to potentially commercialize our product candidate.

Our current and future relationships with customers and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors, distributors, retailers, marketers and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and similar state or foreign laws which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we sell, market and distribute any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by U.S. federal and state governments and by governments in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not necessarily limited to:

38

Table of Contents

​

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, including our collaborators, is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory approval for any approved product is limited by the FDA to those specific indications and conditions for which clinical safety and efficacy have been demonstrated.

Any regulatory approval is limited to the specific labeled indication(s) for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by the FDA. In addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product also requires FDA approval. If we are not able to obtain FDA approval for any desired future indications for our product, our ability to effectively potentially market and sell our product may be reduced and our business may be adversely affected.

While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s approved labeled indication, or for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies, and thus the basis for approval by the regulatory authorities, our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications that are specifically approved by the FDA. These “off-label” uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not regulate the practice of medicine by physicians with respect to their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies in terms of their ability to promote off-label uses or disseminate off-label information. If our promotional activities fail to comply with these requirements, we may be subject to regulatory, compliance, or enforcement action by, these authorities. In addition, our failure to follow FDA requirements relating to promotion and advertising may result in a Warning Letter, cause the FDA to suspend or withdraw an approved product from the market, require a recall, require the issuance of corrective advertising, institute fines, or could result in disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions or civil or criminal prosecution by the government, any of which could harm our reputation and business.

If the DEA decides to reschedule Tramadol from a Schedule IV controlled substance to a more restrictive Schedule, IV Tramadol could lose its competitive advantage, and our related clinical development and regulatory approval could be delayed or prevented.

In July 2014, the DEA classified Tramadol as a Schedule IV controlled substance. In comparison, other opioids, which have a high potential for abuse, are classified as Schedule I and II controlled substances. If approved, IV Tramadol will be the only intravenous Schedule IV opioid on the market. However, in the current environment where the opioid epidemic is a recognized problem in the United States, there is a possibility that the DEA could reschedule Tramadol to a more restrictive classification (Schedule I, II or III). Such a rescheduling, or other similar action by DEA, would severely impair IV Tramadol’s current competitive advantage over traditional opioids and may affect our ability to potentially market IV Tramadol as a safe alternative pain management product.

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates

We are subject to new legislation, regulatory proposals and managed care initiatives that may increase our costs of compliance and adversely affect our ability to market our products, obtain collaborators and raise capital.

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidate, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “PPACA” or collectively, the “ACA”), substantially regulates the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. Among other things, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs; implemented a new methodology under which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected; expanded the eligibility criteria for

39

Table of Contents

​

Medicaid programs; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) at the CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order stating that the administration intended to seek prompt repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and, pending repeal, directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other executive departments and agencies to take all steps necessary to limit any fiscal or regulatory burdens of the Affordable Care Act. On January 28, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Executive Order on Strengthening Medicaid and stated his administration’s intentions to reverse the actions of his predecessor and strengthen the Affordable Care Act. As part of this Executive Order, the Department of Health and Human Services, United States Treasury, and the Department of Labor are to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and agency actions to consider if they are consistent with ensuring both coverage under the Affordable Care Act and if they make high-quality healthcare affordable and accessible to Americans. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to further strengthen Medicaid and the ACA and on April 5, 2022, President Biden signed the Executive Order on Continuing to Strengthen Americans’ Access to Affordable, Quality Health Coverage in which he celebrated the significant progress across the U.S. in making healthcare more affordable and accessible. In this Executive Order, President Biden directed agencies “with responsibilities related to Americans’ access to health coverage” to “review agency actions to identify ways to continue to expand the availability of affordable health coverage.” The continued expansion of the government’s role in the U.S. healthcare industry may further lower rates of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products. While we are unable to predict the likelihood of changes to the Affordable Care Act or other healthcare laws which may negatively impact our profitability, we continue to closely monitor all changes.

President Biden intends to take action against drug prices which are considered “high.” Drug pricing continues to be a subject of debate at the executive and legislative levels of U.S. government. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on March 14, 2021 includes a provision that will eliminate the statutory cap on rebates drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid beginning in January 2024. With the elimination of the rebate cap, manufacturers may be required to compensate states in an amount greater than what the state Medicaid programs pay for the drug. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation, and requires manufacturers to provide discounts on Part D drugs. Substantial penalties can be assessed for noncompliance with the drug pricing provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could have the effect of reducing the prices we can charge and reimbursement we receive for our products, if approved, thereby reducing our profitability, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. The effect of Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on our business and the pharmaceutical industry in general is not yet known.

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.

These and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any current product or future product candidate. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government healthcare programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for drugs. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of any current or future product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased Congressional scrutiny of the

40

Table of Contents

​

FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Public concern regarding the safety of opioid drug products such as IV Tramadol could delay or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval for this product, result in the inclusion of serious risk information in our labeling, negatively impact market performance, or require us to undertake other activities that may entail additional costs.

In light of widely publicized events concerning the safety risk of certain drug products, the FDA, members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, medical professionals and the general public have raised concerns about potential controlled substance drug safety issues. These events have resulted in the withdrawal of drug products, revisions to drug labeling that further limit use of the drug products and the establishment of risk management programs. Under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, or “FDAAA”, the FDA has authority to, among other things, require post-approval studies and clinical trials, mandate changes to drug labeling to reflect new safety information and require risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for certain drugs, including certain currently approved drugs. The FDAAA also expanded the federal government’s clinical trial registry and results databank, resulting in significantly increased government oversight of clinical trials. Under the FDAAA, companies that violate these and other provisions of the law are subject to substantial civil monetary penalties, among other regulatory, civil and criminal penalties. The increased attention to drug safety issues may result in a more cautious approach by the FDA in its review of data from our clinical trials. Data from clinical trials may receive greater scrutiny, particularly with respect to safety, which may make the FDA or other regulatory authorities more likely to require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. If the FDA requires us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials prior to approving IV Tramadol, our ability to obtain approval of this product candidate will be delayed. If the FDA requires us to provide additional clinical or preclinical data following the approval of IV Tramadol, the indications for which this product candidate is approved may be limited or there may be specific warnings or limitations on production dosing, and our efforts to commercialize IV Tramadol may be otherwise adversely impacted.

Rising public, medical, Congressional, and agency concern around the prescription of controlled substance drug products to patients and a growing movement to reduce the use of opioid drug products, to develop abuse-deterrent products, and to prevent dependence also could negatively impact our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from IV Tramadol if it is approved for marketing in the United States. Congress has enacted several laws intended to address opioid use disorder, including the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) in 2016, the 21^st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) in 2016, and the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act) in 2018. These laws primarily focus on funding for treatment, research, and education, but also include provisions intended to encourage reduction in opioid use, such as funding for research on non-opioid pain treatments. Other legislative and administrative measures at the state and federal level include, or may include in the future, restrictions and limitations on opioid prescribing, limitations on opioid doses dispensed per episode of care, labeling requirements specific to opioids, limitations on FDA approval of opioids, assessment of fees against opioid manufacturers, or reimbursement disincentives specific to opioids.

We expect intense competition for our product candidates, and new products may emerge that provide different or better therapeutic alternatives for our targeted indications.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to rapid and intense technological change. We face, and will continue to face, competition in the development and marketing of our product candidates from academic institutions, government agencies, research institutions and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There can be no assurance that developments by others will not render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive. Furthermore, new developments, including the development of other drug technologies and methods of preventing the incidence of disease, occur in the pharmaceutical industry at a rapid pace. These developments may render on or more of our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive.

IV Tramadol will compete with well-established products with similar indications. Competing products available for the management of pain include other approved opioid agonists such as morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl and oliceridine (approved in 2020 by the FDA). Non-opioid products include Ofirmev (IV acetaminophen) and IV formulations of NSAIDs such as Dyloject (diclofenac), Toradol (ketorolac), Anjeso (meloxicam) and Caldolor (ibuprofen). In addition, we also expect to compete with agents such as Exparel, a liposome injection of bupivacaine indicated for administration into the surgical site to produce postsurgical analgesia. In addition to approved products, there are a number of product candidates in development for the management of acute pain. The late-stage pain development pipeline is replete with reformulations and fixed-dose combination products of already available therapies. Among specific drug classes, opioid analgesics and NSAIDs represent the greatest number of agents in development. Most investigational opioids that have reached the later stages of clinical development are new formulations of already marketed opioids.

41

Table of Contents

​

Likewise, investigational NSAIDs — mostly lower dose injectable reformulations of already approved compounds — are another significant area of late-stage drug development in the postoperative pain space.

BAER-101 competitors in the GABA-A space are in the clinic and include Cerevel Therapeutics (darigabat), RespireRx Pharmaceuticals (KRM-II-81), Saniona AB (SAN711), and Engrail Therapeutics (ENX101).

Although there are no approved therapies to treat SBMA, AJ201 competitors include Nido Biosciences (NIDO-361) and pre-clinical programs from academic institutions. In Japan, Leuprorelin is approved for SBMA, but has not been developed for the indication in the United States.

The commercial opportunity for our products could be significantly harmed if competitors are able to develop alternative formulations outside the scope of our in-licensed patents. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we are able to or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or potentially commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, safe, useful and less costly than ours and may be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

If the government or third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and payment rates for our product candidates or any future products we may license or acquire in the future, if any, or if hospitals choose to use therapies that are less expensive, our potential revenue and prospects for profitability will be limited.

Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower-cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. In both domestic and foreign markets, our sales of any future products will depend in part upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third party payors. Such third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. In particular, many U.S. hospitals receive a fixed reimbursement amount per procedure for certain surgeries and other treatment therapies they perform. Because this amount may not be based on the actual expenses the hospital incurs, hospitals may choose to use therapies which are less expensive when compared to our product candidates or future product candidates. Accordingly, our product candidates or any other product candidates that we may in-license or acquire, if approved, will face competition from other therapies and drugs for these limited hospital financial resources. We may need to conduct post-marketing studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of any future products to the satisfaction of hospitals, other target customers and their third-party payors. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by implementation of recently promulgated regulations that permit importation of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our future product might not ultimately be considered cost-effective. Adequate third-party coverage and reimbursement might not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

If none of our product candidates achieves broad market acceptance, the potential revenues that we generate from sales will be limited.

The commercial success of our product candidates or any or all of them, if approved, will depend upon its acceptance by the medical community, the ability to ensure that the drug is included in hospital formularies, and coverage and reimbursement for the drug by third

42

Table of Contents

​

party payors, including government payors. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates or any other product candidate we may license or acquire would depend on a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to:

If any product candidate that we develop does not provide a treatment regimen that is as beneficial as, or is not perceived as being as beneficial as, the current standard of care or otherwise does not provide patient benefit, that product candidate, if approved for commercial sale by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, likely will not achieve market acceptance. Our ability to effectively promote and potentially sell our product candidates and any other product candidates we may license or acquire in the hospital marketplace will also depend on pricing and cost effectiveness, including our ability to produce a product at a competitive price and achieve acceptance of the product onto hospital formularies, as well as our ability to obtain sufficient third-party coverage or reimbursement. Since many hospitals are members of group purchasing organizations, which leverage the purchasing power of a group of entities to obtain discounts based on the collective buying power of the group, our ability to potentially attract customers in the hospital marketplace will also depend on our ability to effectively potentially promote our product candidates to group purchasing organizations. We will also need to demonstrate acceptable evidence of safety and efficacy, as well as relative convenience and ease of administration. Market acceptance could be further limited depending on the prevalence and severity of any expected or unexpected adverse side effects associated with our product candidates. If any of our product candidates is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health care payors and patients, we may not potentially generate sufficient revenue from this product, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

43

Table of Contents

​

If we are unable to establish sales, and marketing capabilities or to enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidate, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We currently do not have a marketing or sales organization for the marketing and sales of pharmaceutical products since we currently have no drug products for sale. In order to potentially commercialize any product candidate that receives marketing approval, we would need to build out marketing, sales, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or enter into agreements with third party contract organizations to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. In the event of successful development and regulatory approval of our product candidates or another product candidate, we might have to build a targeted specialist sales force to market or co-promote the product. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our potential efforts to successfully commercialize our future product, if any, using our own sales and marketing capabilities include, but are not necessarily limited to:

As an alternative to establishing our own sales force, we may choose to partner with third parties that have well-established direct sales forces to sell, market and distribute our products. There are risks involved with partnering with third party sales forces, including ensuring adequate training on the product, regulatory, and compliance requirements associated with promotion of the product.

We face potential product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability for our product candidates or other product candidates we may license or acquire and may have to limit their commercialization.

The use of our product candidates and any other product candidates we may license or acquire in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval expose us to the risk of product liability claims. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical 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 or a breach of warranties. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers or others using, administering or selling our products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against these claims, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

44

Table of Contents

​

We have limited product liability insurance coverage for our clinical trials. However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us or may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. When needed, we intend to potentially expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates in development, but we may be unable to obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any products approved for marketing. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to fall and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes Thereof

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection in the United States with respect to our product candidates or any other product candidates that we may license or acquire and the methods we use to manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents and trade secrets against third party challenges. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidate. We will only be able to protect our technologies from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets cover them.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. If our licensors or we fail to obtain or maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for our product candidates or any other product candidate we may license or acquire, third parties could use our proprietary information, which could impair our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability. Moreover, should we enter into other collaborations we may be required to consult with or cede control to collaborators regarding the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of our patents. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

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. In addition, no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents has emerged to date in the United States. The patent situation outside the United States is even more uncertain. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after a first filing, or in some cases at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In the event that a third party has also filed a U.S. patent application relating to our product candidates or a similar invention, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial and it is possible that our efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a material adverse effect on our U.S. patent position. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our or any of our licensors’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. For example, the federal courts of the United States have taken an increasingly dim view of the patent eligibility of certain subject matter, such as naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences, amino acid sequences and certain

45

Table of Contents

​

methods of utilizing same, which include their detection in a biological sample and diagnostic conclusions arising from their detection. Such subject matter, which had long been a staple of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry to protect their discoveries, is now considered, with few exceptions, ineligible in the first place for protection under the patent laws of the United States. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents (if any) or in those licensed from third parties.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and affect the validity, enforceability, scope or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith 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 issues and administers regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, including the first-to-file provisions. The Leahy-Smith Act could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material, adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter parties review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) trial, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, render unenforceable, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our 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 our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

The issuance of a patent does not foreclose challenges to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Therefore, our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

The patent rights that we have in-licensed covering the infusion time and pharmacokinetics, or “PK”, profile for IV Tramadol are limited to a specific IV formulation of centrally acting synthetic opioid analgesic, and our market opportunity for this product candidate may be limited by the lack of patent protection for the active ingredient itself and other formulations that may be developed by competitors.

The active ingredients in IV Tramadol have been generic in the United States for a number of years. While we believe that the patent estate covering IV Tramadol (including but not limited to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,895,622; 9,561,195, 9,566,253 9,962,343, 10,406,122, 9,693,949, 9,968,551, 9,980,900, 10,022,321,10,537,521, 10,624,842, 10,751,277, 10,751,278, 10,751,279, 10,646,433, 10,729,644, 10,729,645, and 10,617,635) provides strong protection, our market opportunity would be limited if a generic manufacturer could obtain regulatory approval for another IV formulation of tramadol and commercialize it without infringing our patents.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our issued patents or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, rendered unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly.

46

Table of Contents

​

We may become involved in other types of legal proceedings related to our intellectual property that could result in the invalidation or unenforceability of our patents and could be expensive and time consuming, regardless of the outcome.

Any party can challenge the validity of our patents in post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, which include inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings. Although these proceedings are more limited, and therefore are often less expensive, than district court litigation, they can still require substantial resources. If the PTAB finds that our patents are unpatentable, we will be unable to enforce those patents against our competitors. Additionally, our competitors may bring other administrative challenges to our patents before the USPTO, including opposition, derivation, interference, ex parte reexamination, and inter partes reexamination proceedings. These proceedings may prevent our patent applications from issuing, or for patents that are already issued, an unsuccessful outcome will render the patent unenforceable.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in any litigation would harm our business.

Our ability to develop, manufacture, market and potentially sell our product candidates or any other product candidates that we may license or acquire depends upon our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the general fields of pain treatment and neurologic disorder treatment and cover the use of numerous compounds and formulations in our targeted markets. Because of the uncertainty inherent in any patent or other litigation involving proprietary rights, we and our licensors may not be successful in defending intellectual property claims by third parties, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Regardless of the outcome of any litigation, defending the litigation may be expensive, time-consuming and distracting to management. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. There could also be existing patents of which we are not aware that one of our product candidates may inadvertently infringe.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we infringe on their patents or misappropriated their technology, we could face a number of issues, including:

We may need to license certain intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development and potential commercialization of our product. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to potentially commercialize our product, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

We are currently party to license agreements under which we acquired rights to develop and market IV Tramadol, BAER-101 and AJ201. The applicable license agreement for IV Tramadol will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, unless the agreement is earlier terminated. In addition to standard early termination

47

Table of Contents

​

provisions, the License Agreement included provisions allowing early termination by: (i) Revogenex Ireland Ltd. (“Revogenex”) if the FDA did not issue an approval or otherwise issues a “not approvable” notice for the NDA within 15 months after the NDA was filed with the FDA, although this termination right will be tolled if we are using commercially reasonable efforts in our negotiations with the FDA for approval and if we receive a “not approvable” notice, we will have a 15 month period to correct any issues and re-submit the NDA for approval, (ii) us if we reasonably determine prior to NDA approval that the development of IV Tramadol is not economically viable, or (iii) either Revogenex or us (provided we are using or have used commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize IV Tramadol) if, after the third anniversary date of the commercial launch, we fail to achieve annual net sales with respect to IV Tramadol of at least $20 million in any given calendar year, with certain exceptions.

Baergic is similarly party to two license agreements related to BAER-101, one with AstraZeneca AB and another with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Both license agreements were entered into in December 2019. Baergic acquired an exclusive license from AstraZeneca AB to patent and related intellectual property rights pertaining to its proprietary GABA-A 2,3 positive allosteric modulator, and also acquired from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center patent and related intellectual property rights pertaining to GABA inhibition for neurological disorders. Baergic is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the licensed products in the U.S. and European Union.

Finally, we licensed rights to AJ201 from AnnJi under a license agreement we entered into in February 2023. Under this license agreement, we obtained an exclusive license from AnnJi to intellectual property rights pertaining to the molecule known as JM17, which activates Nrf1 and Nrf2, enhances androgen receptor degradation and underlies AJ201, a clinical product candidate currently in a Phase 1b/2a clinical trial in the U.S. for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, also known as Kennedy’s Disease. The license is exclusive as to all oral forms of AJ201 for use in all indications (other than androgenetic alopecia and Alzheimer’s disease) in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Israel. The license agreement also contains customary representations and warranties and provisions related to confidentiality, diligence, indemnification and intellectual property protection. If we fail to comply with the terms of this license agreement, we could lose rights to develop and market AJ201.

In the future, we may become party to licenses that are important for product development and potential commercialization. If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future license and funding agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product or utilize any technology that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements. Such an occurrence could materially and adversely affect the value of a product candidate being developed under any such agreement or could restrict our drug discovery activities. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

To the extent we operate in foreign jurisdictions, we may be exposed to increased risk associated with the potential theft of technology and intellectual property.

Our U.S. patents can be enforced against those who make, use, offer to sell, or sell our licensed patented inventions within the U.S., or against those who import our licensed patented inventions within the U.S. We may depend on foreign intellectual property rights to prevent competitors from manufacturing and selling our products outside of the U.S. without our authorization. Foreign laws and regulations may not protect our patent rights and trade secret rights to the same extent as U.S. law. It is also possible that we may be required to compromise protections or waive rights in order to conduct business in a foreign jurisdiction. Such restrictions may limit our ability to profitably compete in those markets.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patent protection for our product candidates or future product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position, particularly where

48

Table of Contents

​

we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We limit disclosure of such trade secrets where possible but we also seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who do have access to them, such as our employees, our licensors, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and may unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may 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 inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

General Risk Factors

Our business and operations could be adversely affected by the effects of health epidemics, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Any potential future clinical trials may experience delays in patient enrollment, potentially due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the COVID-19 pandemic, or concerns among patients about participating in clinical trials during a public health emergency. During 2020 and 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the operations of government entities, such as the FDA, as well as contract research organizations, third-party manufacturers, and other third-parties upon whom we rely. As a result of “shelter-in-place” orders, quarantines or similar orders or restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19, many companies, including our own, implemented work-from-home policies for their employees during 2020, 2021 and into 2022. The effects of these stay-at-home orders and work-from-home policies may be negatively impacting productivity, resulting in delays in our timelines. The extent of the impact on our operations depends in part on whether governments and businesses reinstate these restrictions as a result of a rising surge in COVID-19 cases or a new variant of the virus. These and similar disruptions in our operations could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition, however, as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have not experienced a significant impact on our business resulting from government restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and services.

The global pandemic of COVID-19 continues to evolve rapidly, and the ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full impact of potential delays or effects on our business, our ability to access the capital markets, or supply chains or on the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material impact on our operations, and we will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely.

Our results of operations and liquidity needs could be materially negatively affected by market fluctuations and economic downturn.

Our results of operations could be materially negatively affected by economic conditions generally, both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Continuing concerns over inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, including the invasion of Ukraine by military forces of the Russian Federation, the availability and cost of credit, the U.S. mortgage market and residential real estate market in the United States have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and the markets going forward. These factors, combined with volatile oil prices, declining business and consumer confidence and increased interest rate, have precipitated an economic recession and fears of a possible depression. Domestic and international equity markets continue to experience heightened volatility and turmoil. These events and the continuing market upheavals may have an adverse effect on us. In the event of a continuing market downturn, our results of operations could be adversely affected by those factors in many ways, including making it more difficult for us to raise funds if necessary, and our stock price may further decline.

We will continue to incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

We are a listed and traded public company. As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market, on which our common stock is listed. These rules impose various requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and appropriate corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel have devoted and will continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For

49

Table of Contents

​

example, these rules and regulations make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal controls for financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. As a result, we are required to periodically perform an evaluation of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of those controls, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, while we remain a non-accelerated filer, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we have engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting. These efforts to comply with Section 404 and related regulations have required, and continue to require, the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. While we anticipate maintaining the integrity of our internal controls over financial reporting and all other aspects of Section 404, we cannot be certain that a material weakness will not be identified when we test the effectiveness of our control systems in the future. If a material weakness is identified, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources, costly litigation or a loss of public confidence in our internal controls, which could have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed clinical trials for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we may incur liability and the further development of our product candidates may be delayed.

The occurrence of a catastrophic disaster could damage our facilities beyond insurance limits or we could lose key data which could cause us to curtail or cease operations.

We are vulnerable to damage and/or loss of vital data from natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, power loss, fire, health epidemics and pandemics, floods and similar events, as well as from accidental loss or destruction. If any disaster were to occur, our ability to operate our businesses could be seriously impaired. We have property, liability and business interruption insurance that may not be adequate to cover losses resulting from disasters or other similar significant business interruptions, and we do not plan to purchase additional insurance to cover such losses due to the cost of obtaining such coverage. Any significant losses that are not recoverable under our insurance policies could seriously impair our business, financial condition and prospects. Any of the aforementioned circumstances may also impede our employees’ and consultants’ abilities to provide services in-person and/or in a timely manner; hinder our ability to raise funds to finance our operations on favorable terms or at all; and trigger effectiveness of “force majeure” clauses under agreements with respect to which we receive goods and services, or under which we are obligated to achieve developmental milestones on certain timeframes. Disputes with third parties over the applicability of such “force majeure” clauses, or the enforceability of developmental milestones and related extension mechanisms in light of such business interruptions, may arise and may become expensive and time-consuming.

We may become involved in securities class action litigation that could divert management’s attention and harm our business.

The stock markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market prices for the common stock of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. These broad market fluctuations may cause the market price of our stock to decline. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years and due to the significant stock price decline we experienced following the announcement of the First CRL. We may become involved in this type of litigation in the future. Litigation often is expensive and diverts management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect our business.

50

Table of Contents

​

Risks Pertaining to the Influence of Fortress

Fortress controls a voting majority of our common stock.

Pursuant to the terms of the Class A Preferred Stock held by Fortress, Fortress will be entitled to cast, for each share of Class A Preferred Stock held by Fortress, the number of votes that is equal to 1.1 times a fraction, the numerator of which is the sum of (A) the aggregate number of shares of outstanding common stock and (B) the whole shares of common stock into which the shares of outstanding the Class A Preferred Stock are convertible and the denominator of which is the aggregate number of shares of outstanding Class A Preferred Stock, or the “Class A Preferred Stock Ratio.” Thus, Fortress will at all times have voting control of us. Further, for a period of ten years from the date of the first issuance of shares of Class A Preferred Stock, the holders of record of the shares of Class A Preferred Stock (or other capital stock or securities issued upon conversion of or in exchange for the Class A Preferred Stock), exclusively and as a separate class, shall be entitled to appoint or elect the majority of our directors.

Accordingly, conflicts of interest may arise between Fortress and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our other stockholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts of interests, Fortress may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates, over the interests of our other stockholders, which could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Fortress has the right to receive a significant grant of shares of our common stock annually, which would result in the dilution of your holdings of common stock upon each grant, which could reduce their value.

Under the terms of the Amended and Restated Founders Agreement, which became effective September 13, 2016, Fortress is entitled to receive a grant of shares of our common stock equal to 2.5% of the gross amount of any equity or debt financing. Additionally, the holders of Class A Preferred Stock, as a class, are to receive an Annual Stock Dividend, payable in shares of common stock in an amount equal to 2.5% of our fully-diluted outstanding capital stock as of the business day immediately prior to the date such dividend is payable. Fortress currently owns all outstanding shares of Class A Preferred Stock. At our Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on June 13, 2018, the Company’s stockholders approved an amendment to the Company’s Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, amending the Class A Preferred dividend payment date from February 17 to January 1 of each year. These potential future share issuances to Fortress and any other holder of Class A Preferred Stock will dilute your holdings in our common stock and, if our value has not grown proportionately over the prior year, would result in a reduction in the value of your shares. The Amended and Restated Founders Agreement has a term of 15 years and renews automatically for subsequent one-year periods unless terminated by Fortress or upon a Change in Control (as defined in the Amended and Restated Founders Agreement).

We might have received better terms from unaffiliated third parties than the terms we receive in our agreements with Fortress.

We entered into certain agreements with Fortress in connection with our separation from Fortress into an independent company, including the Management Services Agreement, or the “MSA,” and the Founders Agreement, and entered into the Contribution Agreement with Fortress in May 2022. While we believe the terms of these agreements are reasonable, they might not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements relate to, among other things, payment of a royalty on product sales, the provision of employment and transition services and the contribution to us of a majority of the outstanding equity securities of Baergic previously held by Fortress. We might have received better terms from third parties because, among other things, third parties might have competed with each other to win our business.

The ownership by our executive officers and some of our directors of equity securities of Fortress and/or rights to acquire equity securities of Fortress might create, or appear to create, conflicts of interest.

Because of their current or former positions with Fortress, some of our executive officers and directors own shares of Fortress common stock and/or options to purchase shares of Fortress common stock. Their individual holdings of common stock and/or options to purchase common stock of Fortress may be significant compared to their total assets. Ownership by our directors and officers, after our separation from Fortress, of common stock and/or options to purchase common stock of Fortress create or might appear to create conflicts of interest when these directors and officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for Fortress than for us. For instance, and by way of example, if there were to be a dispute between Fortress and us regarding the calculation of the royalty fee due to Fortress under the terms of the Founders Agreement, then certain of our officers and directors may have and will appear to have a conflict of interest with regard to the outcome of such dispute.

51

Table of Contents

​

​

Item 1B.            Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

​

Item 2.               Properties

Our corporate and executive office is located at 1111 Kane Concourse Suite 301, Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154. We are not currently under a lease agreement at 1111 Kane Concourse, but we are provided access to this space by Fortress at no additional cost. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current requirements. We do not own any real property.

​

Item 3.               Legal Proceedings

To our knowledge, there are no legal proceedings pending against us, other than routine actions and administrative proceedings, and other actions not deemed material are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. In the ordinary course of business, however, the Company may be subject to both insured and uninsured litigation. Suits and claims may be brought against the Company by customers, suppliers, partners and/or third parties (including tort claims for personal injury arising from clinical trials of the Company’s product candidates and property damage) alleging deficiencies in performance, breach of contract, etc., and seeking resulting alleged damages.

​

Item 4.               Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

​

PART II

Item 5.                Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and trades under the symbol “ATXI”.

Holders

As of March 28, 2023, there were approximately 5.9 million shares of common stock outstanding. The number of record holders of our common stock as of March 28, 2023 was 35.

Dividends

We have never paid or declared any cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon a number of factors, including our results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors our board of directors deems relevant.

Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by Item 5 of Form 10-K regarding equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.”

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Not applicable.

52

Table of Contents

​

Description of Registrant’s Securities to be Registered

Not applicable.

​

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

​

Not applicable.

​

Item 6.            Reserved

​

​

53

Table of Contents

​

Item 7.            Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Results of Operations

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in the following discussion and throughout this report that are not historical in nature are “forward-looking statements.” You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “intend,” “believe,” and similar expressions. Although we believe the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements are inherently subject to risk and we can give no assurances that our expectations will prove to be correct. Actual results could differ from those described in this report because of numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include, without limitation, those described under Item 1A “Risk Factors.” We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect actual outcomes. Please see “Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this Form 10-K.

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements in the discussion of our financial condition and results of operations to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect actual outcomes.

Overview

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (“Avenue” or the “Company”) is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of rare and neurologic diseases. Our product candidates include AJ201 for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (“SBMA”), intravenous (IV) Tramadol (“IV Tramadol”) for the treatment of post-operative acute pain, and BAER-101 for the treatment of epilepsy and panic disorders.

AJ201

In February 2023, we announced that we entered into a license agreement (the “License Agreement”) with AnnJi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“AnnJi”) whereby the Company obtained an exclusive license from AnnJi to intellectual property rights pertaining to the molecule known as JM17, which activates Nrf1 and Nrf2, enhances androgen receptor degradation and underlies AJ201, a clinical product candidate currently in a Phase 1b/2a clinical trial in the United States (“U.S.”) for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (“SBMA”), also known as Kennedy’s Disease.

Under the License Agreement, in exchange for exclusive rights to the intellectual property underlying the AJ201 product candidate, the Company will pay an initial cash license fee of $3.0 million, of which $2.0 million is payable within 60 days and $1 million payable within 180 days after the effective date of the License Agreement. The Company is also obligated to issue shares of its common stock under the Subscription Agreement (described below) and make additional payments over the course of the License Agreement including reimbursement payments of up to $10.8 million in connection with the product’s Phase 1b/2a clinical trial.

In connection with the signing of the License Agreement, the Company agreed to issue 831,618 shares of its common stock to AnnJi (the “First Tranche Shares”), and then to issue an additional 276,652 shares of Common Stock upon enrollment of the eighth patient in the ongoing Phase 1b/2a SBMA clinical trial (the “Second Tranche Shares” and, together with the First Tranche Shares, the “Consideration Shares”). The license provided under the License Agreement is exclusive as to all oral forms of AJ201 for use in all indications (other than androgenetic alopecia and Alzheimer’s disease) in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Israel. The License Agreement also contains customary representations and warranties and provisions related to confidentiality, diligence, indemnification and intellectual property protection. The Company will initially be obligated to obtain both clinical and commercial supply of AJ201 exclusively through AnnJi. The Company and AnnJi entered into a subscription agreement, dated as of February 28, 2023 (the “Subscription Agreement”) that provides for the issuance of First Tranche Shares, which contains customary representations and warranties of the Company and AnnJi, respectively, and is subject to customary closing conditions. The Company and AnnJi will enter into a subsequent subscription agreement, in substantially the same form as the Subscription Agreement, with respect to the issuance of the Second Tranche Shares. Also in connection with execution of the License Agreement, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with AnnJi. Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, the Company will be required to file, on or prior to August 28, 2023, a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to register the resale of the Consideration Shares.

54

Table of Contents

​

IV Tramadol

On February 15, 2022, we had our Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA regarding IV Tramadol. In the final part of the public meeting, the Advisory Committee voted yes or no on the following question: “Has the Applicant submitted adequate information to support the position that the benefits of their product outweigh the risks for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in an inpatient setting?” The results were 8 yes votes and 14 no votes. On March 18, 2022, we received an Appeal Denied Letter from the OND in response to the FDRR. On August 31, 2022, the Company disclosed that, on June 17, 2022, following the receipt of the Letter, the Company submitted a Type A Meeting Request and related briefing documents to the FDA. The meeting was granted by the Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products (“DAAAP”) on June 27, 2022, and scheduled for August 9, 2022. The Company submitted a briefing document presenting a study design that the Company believed has the potential to address the comments and deficiencies noted in the Letter and sought the DAAAP’s guidance to refine the study design that would support a resubmission of a New Drug Application for the Company’s current lead product candidate, intravenous Tramadol. The meeting on August 9, 2022 was a collaborative discussion on the study design and potential path forward. We incorporated the FDA’s suggestions from the meeting minutes and submitted a detailed study protocol that could form the basis for the submission of a complete response to the Second CRL.

We announced on March 8, 2023 that the Company would participate in a Type C meeting with the FDA on March 9, 2023 to discuss a proposed study protocol to assess the risk of respiratory depression related to opioid stacking on IV Tramadol relative to an approved opioid analgesic. We continue to evaluate next steps with regard to IV Tramadol.

BAER-101

We recently expanded our business with the acquisition of Baergic Bio, Inc. (“Baergic”) and its asset BAER-101, which would strategically align with Avenue’s goals of building a rare and neurologic pipeline. On May 11, 2022, we entered into a stock contribution agreement (the “Contribution Agreement”) with Fortress, pursuant to which Fortress agreed to transfer ownership of 100% of its shares (common and preferred) in Baergic to us. The acquisition was completed on November 8, 2022 and as a result, Baergic is currently a majority-controlled and owned private subsidiary company of Avenue.

Baergic is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company founded in December 2019 that focuses on the development of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of neurologic disorders. Baergic’s pipeline currently consists of a single compound, BAER-101, a novel α2/3–subtype-selective GABA A positive allosteric modulator (“PAM”). BAER-101 (formally known as AZD7325) was originally developed by AstraZeneca and has an established safety profile in early clinical trials including over 700 patients.

Under the Contribution Agreement, Fortress also agreed to assign to us certain intercompany agreements existing between Fortress and Baergic, including a Founders Agreement and Management Services Agreement. Consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Contribution Agreement was subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent, including, inter alia: (i) the closing of an equity financing by the Company resulting in gross proceeds of no less than $7.5 million, (ii) the agreement by minority Avenue shareholder InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“InvaGen”) to (A) have 100% of its shares in us repurchased by us and (B) terminate certain of the agreements into which it entered with us and/or Fortress in connection with InvaGen’s 2019 equity investment in us, which will eliminate certain negative consent rights of InvaGen over us and restore certain rights and privileges of Fortress in us (all upon terms to be agreed upon with InvaGen); and (iii) the sustained listing of our common stock on Nasdaq.

The Baergic transaction expands our development portfolio within neurologic diseases. Evaluation and negotiation of the Contribution Agreement was overseen, and execution of the Contribution Agreement was approved, by special committees at the Avenue and Fortress levels, both of which exclusively comprised independent and disinterested directors of the respective companies’ boards.

Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 was approximately $3.6 million and $3.7 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $80.6 million. Substantially all our net losses resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development program of IV Tramadol and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations.

We expect to continue to incur research and development costs and increased general and administration related costs and incur operating losses for at least the next several years as we continue the development of our product candidates.

55

Table of Contents

​

We intend to obtain additional capital through the sale of debt or equity financings or other arrangements to fund our operations, research and development activity or regulatory approval activity; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to raise the necessary capital under acceptable terms, if at all. The sale of additional equity may dilute existing stockholders and newly issued shares may contain senior rights and preferences compared to currently outstanding shares of our common stock. Issued debt securities may contain covenants and limit our ability to pay dividends or make other distributions to stockholders. If we are unable to obtain such additional financing, future operations would need to be scaled back or discontinued.

We are a majority-controlled subsidiary of Fortress. For related party transactions, see Note 4 to our audited consolidated financial statements included herein.

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on February 9, 2015. Our executive offices are located at 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 301, Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154. Our telephone number is (781) 652-4500, and our email address is info@avenuetx.com.

Recent Developments

Chief Executive Officer

On August 1, 2022, the Board approved the appointment of Dr. Alexandra MacLean as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. With the appointment of Dr. MacLean as the new Chief Executive Officer, Mr. David Jin ended his term as interim Chief Executive Officer and will continue his responsibilities as Interim Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company.

NASDAQ Deficiency Letter

On May 24, 2022, we received a deficiency letter (the “Nasdaq Letter”) from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), notifying us that we are not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1), which requires us to maintain a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders’ equity for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market (the “Stockholders’ Equity Requirement”), nor in compliance with either of the alternative listing standards, market value of listed securities of at least $35 million or net income of $500,000 from continuing operations in the most recently completed fiscal year, or in two of the three most recently completed fiscal years. Our failure to comply with the Stockholders’ Equity Requirement was based on the filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022, reporting the stockholders’ equity of $1,159,000. Pursuant to the Nasdaq Letter, we had 45 calendar days from the date of the Nasdaq Letter to submit a plan to regain compliance. On July 8, 2022, we submitted a compliance plan (the “Compliance Plan”) to Nasdaq.

On August 9, 2022, we received written notice (the “Notice”) from Nasdaq, stating that the Nasdaq has determined that we have not complied with the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), which requires us to maintain a minimum bid price of our common stock be at least $1.00 per share (the “Minimum-Bid Price Requirement”), or the Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. The Notice indicated that our common stock would be suspended from trading on Nasdaq unless we request a hearing before an independent hearings panel (the “Panel”) by August 16, 2022.

Additionally, as previously disclosed on February 8, 2022, we received a letter from the Regulations Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC indicating that the closing bid price of our common stock has been below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days, and that, therefore, we are not in compliance with the Minimum-Bid Price Requirement for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market.

We timely requested a hearing before the Panel, which took place on September 22, 2022. On September 29, 2022, the Panel issued a decision granting our request for continued listing on Nasdaq, through October 31, 2022, to demonstrate compliance with the Stockholders’ Equity Requirement, and through October 6, 2022 to satisfy the Minimum Bid Price Requirement.

On October 18, 2022, we were formally notified by Nasdaq that we have evidenced compliance with the Minimum-Bid Price Requirement and the Stockholders’ Equity Requirement for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market, as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rules 5550(a)(2) and 5550(b)(1), respectively. Accordingly, the listing matter has been closed.

56

Table of Contents

​

Reverse Stock Split

On July 25, 2022, the holders of a majority of the voting power of our capital stock executed a written consent approving a grant of discretionary authority to our board of directors (the “Board”) to, without further stockholder approval, (i) effect a reverse stock split of our issued and outstanding common stock within a range of between 10-for-1 and 20-for-1 (with the Board being authorized to determinate the exact ratio) (the “Reverse Stock Split”) and (ii) reduce the number of our authorized shares of common stock from 50,000,000 to 20,000,000 (the “Authorized Share Reduction”) by filing an amendment (the “Amendment”) to our Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. The written consent was signed by the holders of 9,423,429 shares of our common stock and 250,000 shares of our Class A Preferred Stock. Each share of common stock entitles the holder thereof to one vote on all matters submitted to stockholders and each share of Class A Preferred Stock has the voting power of 1.1 times (A) the number of outstanding shares of common stock plus (B) the whole shares our common stock into which the outstanding shares of Class A Preferred Stock are convertible, divided by the number of outstanding shares of Class A Preferred Stock, or 99 votes per share as of July 25, 2022. Accordingly, the holders of approximately 73% of the voting power of our capital stock as of July 25, 2022 signed the written consent approving the Reverse Stock Split, the Authorized Share Reduction and the Amendment. The Board also approved the Reverse Stock Split, the Authorized Share Reduction and the Amendment.

The Reverse Stock Split was effective on September 23, 2022 upon filing of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of Delaware, which date was at least twenty (20) days following the mailing of the information statement. Under the Amendment, the number of authorized shares of common stock immediately after the Reverse Stock Split (“New Common Stock”) was simultaneously reduced from 50,000,000 to 20,000,000 shares. All share and per share information has been retroactively adjusted to give effect to the Reverse Stock Split for all periods presented, unless otherwise indicated.

As a result of the Reverse Stock Split, every 15 shares of common stock outstanding immediately prior to the effectiveness of the Reverse Stock Split were combined and converted into one share of New Common Stock without any change in the par value per share. No fractional shares were issued in connection with the Reverse Stock Split. Stockholders who would otherwise be entitled to a fraction of one share of New Common Stock as a result of the Reverse Stock Split instead received an amount in cash equal to such fraction multiplied by the closing sale price of common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market on September 22, 2022, as adjusted for the Reverse Stock Split.

October 2022 Public Offering

On October 6, 2022, we entered into an Underwriting Agreement (the “Underwriting Agreement”) with Aegis Capital Corp., as underwriter (the “Underwriter”), related to our underwritten public offering (the “October 2022 Offering”) of 2,652,065 units (“Units”) and 984,300 pre-funded units (“Pre-funded Units”). Each Unit consisted of one share (a “Share”) of our common stock, and one warrant to purchase one share of our common stock (each, a “Warrant” and, collectively, the “Warrants”), and each Pre-funded Unit consisted of one pre-funded warrant to purchase one share of common stock (each, a “Pre-funded Warrant” and collectively, the “Pre-funded Warrants”) and one Warrant. The Units were sold at a price of $3.30 per Unit, and the Pre-Funded Units were sold at a price of $3.2999 ($3.30 less $0.0001, the exercise price of the Pre-funded Warrants).

The Warrants are immediately exercisable upon issuance and are exercisable for a period of five years after the issuance date. The Shares, the Pre-funded Warrants and the Warrants were immediately separable upon issuance and were issued separately. The Underwriter was granted a 45-day option to purchase up to an aggregate of (i) 545,454 additional Shares and/or Pre-funded Units, representing 15% of the Shares and Pre-funded Warrants sold in the Offering, and/or (ii) Warrants to purchase 545,454 additional Shares, representing 15% of the Warrants sold in the Offering, which it initially exercised, in part, electing to purchase 545,454 Warrants at a purchase price of $0.01 per Warrant. We consummated the transactions contemplated by the Offering and the Underwriting Agreement on October 11, 2022. Prior to the closing date of the Offering, investors in certain of the Pre-funded Warrants, pursuant to the terms thereof, elected to exercise 949,900 Pre-funded Warrants. Accordingly, at the closing, we issued 949,900 fewer Pre-funded Warrants and, in lieu thereof, the corresponding 949,900 shares of Common Stock.

We received net proceeds from the Offering of $10.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable us.

InvaGen Share Repurchase

In connection with the closing of the Offering, on October 11, 2022, we consummated the transactions contemplated by the Share Repurchase Agreement with InvaGen, pursuant to which we repurchased 100% of the shares in the Company held by InvaGen (the

57

Table of Contents

​

“InvaGen Shares”) for a purchase price of $3 million. In addition, under the Share Repurchase Agreement we agreed to pay InvaGen an additional amount as a contingent fee, payable in the form of seven and a half percent (7.5%) of the proceeds of future financings, up to $4 million. In connection with the closing of the Share Repurchase Agreement, which occurred on October 31, 2022, all of the rights retained by InvaGen pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement entered into by and among us, InvaGen and Fortress on November 12, 2018, were terminated.

January 2023 Registered Offering and Private Placement

On January 27, 2023, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Registered Purchase Agreement”) with a single institutional accredited investor, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell (i) 448,000 shares (the “Shares”) of our common stock at a price per Share of $1.55, and (ii) pre-funded warrants (the “Pre-funded Warrants”) to purchase 1,492,299 shares of common stock, at a price per Pre-funded Warrant equal to the price per Share, less $0.001 (the “Registered Offering”). The Pre-funded Warrants have an exercise price of $0.001 per share, became exercisable upon issuance and remain exercisable until exercised in full. We received approximately $3.0 million in gross proceeds from the Registered Offering, before deducting placement agency fees and estimated offering expenses.

On January 27, 2023, we also entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “PIPE Purchase Agreement”) with the same institutional accredited investor for a private placement offering (“Private Placement”) of warrants (the “PIPE Warrants”) to purchase 1,940,299 shares of common stock. Pursuant to the PIPE Purchase Agreement, we agreed to issue and sell the PIPE Warrants at an offering price of $0.125 per PIPE Warrant to purchase one share of common stock. The PIPE Warrants have an exercise price of $1.55 per share (subject to adjustment as set forth in the PIPE Warrants), are exercisable six months after issuance and will expire three years from the date on which the PIPE Warrants become exercisable. The PIPE Warrants contain standard anti-dilution adjustments to the exercise price including for share splits, share dividend, rights offerings and pro rata distributions. The Private Placement closed on January 31, 2023, concurrently with the Registered Offering. The gross proceeds to us from the Private Placement, before deducting placement agent fees and other estimated offering expenses payable by us, were approximately $0.24 million.

In connection with the PIPE Purchase Agreement, we entered into a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with the investor. Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, we will be required to file, on or prior to April 10, 2023 (the “Filing Date”), a resale registration statement (the “Resale Registration Statement”) with the SEC to register the resale of the shares issuable upon exercise of the PIPE Warrants. Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, the Resale Registration Statement must be declared effective by the SEC within 15 days after the Filing Date or 45 days following the Filing Date if the Resale Registration Statement is reviewed by the SEC. We will be obligated to pay certain liquidated damages to the investor if we fail to file the resale registration statement when required, if the Resale Registration Statement is not declared effective by the SEC when required under the Registration Rights Agreement, or if we fail to maintain the effectiveness of the Resale Registration Statement.

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our audited consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”). The preparation of these audited consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our audited consolidated financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Research and Development

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future research and development activities are expensed when the activity has been performed or when the goods have been received rather than when the payment is made. Upfront and milestone payments due to third parties that perform research and development services on our behalf will be expensed as services are rendered or when the milestone is achieved. Costs incurred in obtaining technology licenses are charged to research and development expense if the technology licensed has not reached technological feasibility and has no alternative future use.

58

Table of Contents

​

Research and development costs primarily consist of personnel related expenses, including salaries, benefits, travel, and other related expenses, stock-based compensation, payments made to third parties for license and milestone costs related to in-licensed products and technology, payments made to third party contract research organizations for preclinical and clinical studies, investigative sites for clinical trials, consultants, the cost of acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials, costs associated with regulatory filings and patents, laboratory costs and other supplies.

Costs incurred in obtaining technology licenses are charged to research and development expense if the technology licensed has not reached commercial feasibility and has no alternative future use. The licenses purchased by us require substantial completion of research and development, regulatory and marketing approval efforts in order to reach commercial feasibility and has no alternative future use. Accordingly, the total purchase price for the licenses acquired are reflected as research and development.

Stock-Based Compensation

We expense stock-based compensation to employees, consultants and board members over the requisite service period based on the estimated grant-date fair value of the awards. Stock-based awards with graded-vesting schedules are recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for each separately vesting portion of the award.

The assumptions used in calculating the fair value of stock-based awards represent management’s best estimates and involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management’s judgment.

Warrant Liabilities

We have issued freestanding warrants to purchase shares of our common stock in connection with financing activities. Our outstanding common stock warrants issued in connection with the equity financing completed in 2022 are classified as liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet as they contain terms for redemption of the underlying security that are outside our control. We use the Monte Carlo option pricing model to value warrants, which requires management to estimate inputs including expected volatility and expected term, and is most significantly impacted by our common stock price. These inputs are inherently subjective and require significant analysis and judgment to develop. The fair value of all warrants is re-measured at each financial reporting date with any changes in fair value being recognized in change in fair value of warrant liabilities, a component of other income (expense), in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). We will continue to re-measure the fair value of the warrant liabilities until exercise or expiration of the related warrant.

Income Taxes

No income tax expense or benefit was recognized in the accompanying audited consolidated financial statements. Our deferred tax assets are comprised primarily of net operating loss carryforwards. We maintain a full valuation allowance on our deferred tax assets since we have not yet achieved sustained profitable operations. As a result, we have not recorded any income tax benefit since our inception.

59

Table of Contents

​

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

​

​

Research and Development Expenses

For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, research and development expenses were $2.7 million and $1.3 million, respectively. The $1.4 million increase primarily reflects an increase of $0.8 million due advisory committee preparation and costs, $0.2 million in bonus costs, $0.3 million in acquired license costs and $0.1 million in non-cash stock compensation costs.

We expect our research and development activities to continue as we attempt to gain regulatory approval for IV Tramadol and pursue continued development of AJ201 and BAER-101, reflecting costs associated with the following:

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist principally of professional fees for legal and consulting services, market research, personnel-related costs, public reporting company related costs and other general operating expenses not otherwise included in research and development expenses. We expect our general and administrative costs to continue as we seek potential regulatory approval and potential commercialization of our product candidates.

For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, general and administrative expenses were $5.3 million and $2.5 million, respectively. The $2.8 million increase primarily reflects increases of $2.6 million in consulting and professional fees and $0.3 million in non-cash stock compensation costs partially offset by a decrease of $0.1 million in personnel costs.

Interest Income

Interest income was $20,000 and $7,000 for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The increase in interest income was due to increased interest rates and cash and cash equivalents.

60

Table of Contents

​

Financing costs – warrant liabilities

Financing costs of our warrant liabilities reflect an allocation of total financing costs associated with the public offering in October 2022, on the basis of the fair value of the warrant liabilities as compared to the total proceeds received by the Company.

Change in fair value of warrant liability

Change in the estimated fair value of warrant liabilities is comprised of the fair value remeasurement of the liabilities associated with the October 2022 Public Offering. We account for warrants as either equity-classified or liability-classified instruments based on an assessment of the warrant’s specific terms and applicable authoritative guidance in ASC 480 and ASC 815. The assessment considers whether the warrants are freestanding financial instruments pursuant to ASC 480, meet the definition of a liability pursuant to ASC 480, and whether the warrants meet all of the requirements for equity classification under ASC 815, including whether the warrants are indexed to the Company’s own common stock, among other conditions for equity classification. This assessment, which requires the use of professional judgment, is conducted at the time of warrant issuance and as of each subsequent quarterly period end date while the warrants are outstanding.

For issued or modified warrants that meet all of the criteria for equity classification, the warrants are required to be recorded as a component of additional paid-in capital at the time of issuance. For issued or modified warrants that do not meet all the criteria for equity classification, the warrants are required to be recorded at their initial fair value on the date of issuance, and each balance sheet date thereafter. Changes in the estimated fair value of the warrants are recognized as a non-cash gain or loss on the consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the warrants was estimated using a Monte Carlo simulation approach (see Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included herein).

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

​

​

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was approximately $7.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, primarily comprised of our $3.6 million net loss and $5.6 million reduction in fair value of the warrant liability, partially offset by $0.7 million in share-based compensation, $0.5 million of common shares issuable and $0.4 million change in operating assets and liabilities.

Net cash used in operating activities was approximately $3.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, primarily comprised of our $3.7 million net loss and decrease in operating assets and liabilities of $0.5 million, partially offset by $0.4 million in share-based compensation.

Investing Activities

None.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2022 was $10.5 million, primarily related to $11.5 million in proceeds of our issuance of shares pursuant to our underwritten public offering in October 2022 and $0.1 million proceeds from exercise of warrants, partially offset by the $1.1 million repurchase of common shares of the Company from InvaGen.

61

Table of Contents

​

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $4.4 million which was from the proceeds of our issuance of shares pursuant to our two underwritten public offerings in November and December 2021.

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

See Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included herein for a full description of recent accounting pronouncements including the respective expected dates of adoption and expected effects on results of operations and financial condition.

​

Item 7A.          Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.

We are a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act and are not required to provide the information otherwise required under this item.

Item 8.             Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

The information required by this Item is set forth in our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto beginning at page F-1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Item 9.            Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

Not applicable.

​

Item 9A.          Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. As of December 31, 2022, management carried out, under the supervision and with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act). Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms. Based upon that evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or Rule 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2022. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, known as COSO, in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013). Our management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on these criteria.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls. Our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected.

​

Item 9B.            Other Information

None.

​

62

Table of Contents

​

Item 9C.Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections

​

Not Applicable.

PART III

Item 10.            Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our upcoming 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

​

Item 11.           Executive Compensation

The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our upcoming 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

​

Item 12.          Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our upcoming 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

​

Item 13.            Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our upcoming 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

​

Item 14.            Principal Accounting Fees and Services

The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference from our Proxy Statement for our upcoming 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

​

63

Table of Contents

​

PART IV

Item 15.           Exhibits and Consolidated Financial Statement Schedules

(a)           Consolidated Financial Statements.

The following consolidated financial statements are filed as part of this report:

​

​

​

64

Table of Contents

​

(b)         Exhibits.

​

65

Table of Contents

​

66

Table of Contents

​

* Filed herewith.

** Subject to a request for confidential treatment.

# Management contract or compensatory plan.

​

Item 16.              Form 10-K Summary

None.

​

​

67

Table of Contents

​

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc.:

​

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiary (the Company) as of December 31, 2022, the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2022, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

​

We also have audited the adjustments to the 2021 consolidated financial statements to retrospectively apply the change in accounting due to the reverse stock split, as described in Note 1. In our opinion, such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2021 consolidated financial statements of the Company other than with respect to the adjustments and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the 2021 consolidated financial statements taken as a whole.

Going Concern

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has incurred substantial operating losses since its inception and expects to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audit, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks.

Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

F-1

Table of Contents

​

Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of a critical audit matter does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Valuation of warrant liability

As discussed in Notes 2 and 7 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company accounts for certain warrants issued in October 2022 as a liability. At October 11, 2022, the issuance date, and December 31, 2022, the Company recorded a warrant liability of $8.3 million and $2.6 million, respectively. The Company estimated the fair value of the warrant liability at issuance and re-measures the liability at each financial reporting date with any changes in fair value being recognized in change in fair value of warrant liabilities, a component of other income (expense). The Company used a Monte Carlo simulation approach to value the warrants. Key inputs included expected volatility, expected term, the risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield, and the Company’s common stock price.

We identified the evaluation of the fair value of the warrant liability as of October 11, 2022 and December 31, 2022 as a critical audit matter. A high degree of auditor judgment and specialized skills and knowledge were required in the evaluation of the estimated fair values due to the degree of subjectivity associated with the expected volatility assumptions and their sensitivity to variation.

The following are the primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter. We evaluated the design of an internal control over the Company’s valuation process, including the determination of the expected volatility assumption. We assessed the reasonableness of the fair value of the warrant liability by involving valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, who assisted in developing an independent range of the fair value of the warrant liability as of October 11, 2022 and December 31, 2022, including volatility assumptions that were independently developed in consideration of historical and implied share price volatility information. We compared these independently developed ranges to the respective fair value of the warrant liability recorded by the Company as of October 11, 2022 and December 31, 2022.

​

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2022.

​

New York, New York

March 31, 2023

​

​

F-2

Table of Contents

​

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

​

Stockholders and Board of Directors

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc.

New York, NY

​

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited, before the effects of the adjustments to retrospectively apply the reverse stock split described in Note 1, the accompanying balance sheet of Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2021, the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). The 2021 financial statements before the effects of the adjustments discussed in Note 1 are not presented herein. In our opinion, the financial statements, before the effects of the adjustments to retrospectively apply the reverse stock split described in Note 1, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2021, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the adjustments to retrospectively apply the reverse stock split described in Note 1 and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance about whether such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. Those adjustments were audited by KPMG LLP.

Going Concern Uncertainty

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audit we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

​

We have served as the Company’s auditor from 2016 to 2022.

​

New York, NY

March 25, 2022

​

​

​

F-3

Table of Contents

​

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

​

​

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

​

F-4

Table of Contents

​

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

​

​

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

​

F-5

Table of Contents

​

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity

(In thousands, except share amounts)

​

​

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

​

F-6

Table of Contents

​

AVENUE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(In thousands)

​