CorMedix Inc. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

     UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

_________________

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2016

OR

For the transition period from _________________ to ______________________

Commission file number: 001-34673

CORMEDIX INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Delaware		20-5894890
(State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation or Organization)		(I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.)

 

1430 US Highway 206, Suite 200, Bedminster, NJ		07921
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)		(Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (908) 517-9500

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

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.001 Par Value		NYSE MKT LLC

 

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes ☒ No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulations S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

☐ 

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

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

 

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 registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $72.6 million. Solely for the purpose of this calculation, shares held by directors and executive officers of the registrant have been excluded. Such exclusion should not be deemed a determination or an admission by the registrant that such individuals are, in fact, affiliates of the registrant.

The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock was 40,720,838 as of March 14, 2017.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated herein by reference, as indicated in Part III.

 

CORMEDIX INC.

 

PART I
Item 1.	Business.	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors.	16
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments.	33
Item 2.	Properties.	33
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings.	33
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures.	35
PART II
Item 5.	Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.	35
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data.	37
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.	38
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.	50
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.	50
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.	50
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures.	50
Item 9B.	Other Information.	53
PART III
Item 10.	Directors and Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.	53
Item 11.	Executive Compensation.	53
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.	53
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence.	53
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services.	53
PART IV
Item 15.		54

Neutrolin® is our registered trademark. All other trade names, trademarks and service marks appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners. We have assumed that the reader understands that all such terms are source-indicating. Accordingly, such terms, when first mentioned in this report, appear with the trade name, trademark or service mark notice and then throughout the remainder of this report without trade name, trademark or service mark notices for convenience only and should not be construed as being used in a descriptive or generic sense.

PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The statements contained in this report that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of words such as, but not limited to, “anticipate,” “believe,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “will,” “plan,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” and similar expressions or variations intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the beliefs and assumptions of our management based on information currently available to management. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below in the section titled “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” Furthermore, such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases.

 

Our primary focus is on the development of our lead product candidate, Neutrolin® (also known as CRMD003), for potential commercialization in the United States (“U.S.”) and other key markets. We have in-licensed the worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Neutrolin®. Neutrolin is a novel anti-infective solution (a formulation of taurolidine, citrate and heparin 1000 u/ml) for the reduction and prevention of catheter-related infections and thrombosis in patients requiring central venous catheters in clinical settings such as dialysis, critical/intensive care, and oncology. Infection and thrombosis represent key complications among critical care / intensive care and cancer patients with central venous catheters. These complications can lead to treatment delays and increased costs to the healthcare system when they occur due to hospitalizations, need for IV antibiotic treatment, long-term anticoagulation therapy, removal/replacement of the central venous catheter, related treatment costs and increased mortality. We believe Neutrolin addresses a significant unmet medical need and a potential large market opportunity.

 

Neutrolin – United States

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, has designated Neutrolin as a Qualified Infectious Disease Product, or QIDP, for prevention of catheter related blood stream infections in patients with end stage renal disease receiving hemodialysis through a central venous catheter. Catheter-related blood stream infections and clotting can be life-threatening. The QIDP designation provides an additional five years of market exclusivity in addition to the five years granted for a New Chemical Entity. In addition, in January 2015, the FDA granted Fast Track designation to Neutrolin Catheter Lock Solution, pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety Innovation Act, or FDASIA, highlighting the large unmet need to prevent infections in the U.S. healthcare system. The Fast Track designation of Neutrolin provides us with the opportunity to meet with the FDA on a more frequent basis during the development process, and also ensures eligibility to request priority review of the marketing application.

 

In late 2013, we met with the FDA to determine the pathway for U.S. marketing approval of Neutrolin. Based on those discussions, we determined to conduct two pivotal trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of Neutrolin to secure marketing approval in the U.S. We initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis patients with a central venous catheter in December 2015 and are currently planning to initiate a Phase 3 trial in oncology patients with catheters.

 

 

 

We are in discussions with the FDA to develop the design of a Phase 3 clinical trial in oncology patients with catheters, or LOCK-IT-200. This trial also is subject to funding requirements (see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Funding and Capital Requirements” in Part II, Item 7 of this report).

 

Neutrolin – International

 

In July 2013, we received CE Mark approval for Neutrolin. As a result, in December 2013, we commercially launched Neutrolin in Germany for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections (“CRBSI”), and maintenance of catheter patency in hemodialysis patients using a tunneled, cuffed central venous catheter for vascular access.  To date, Neutrolin is registered and may be sold in certain European Union and Middle Eastern countries for such treatment.

 

In September 2014, the TUV-SUD and The Medicines Evaluation Board of the Netherlands granted a label expansion for Neutrolin for these same expanded indications for the European Union (“EU”). In December 2014, we received approval from the Hessian District President in Germany to expand the label to include use in oncology patients receiving chemotherapy, IV hydration and IV medications via central venous catheters. The expansion also adds patients receiving medication and IV fluids via central venous catheters in intensive or critical care units (cardiac care unit, surgical care unit, neonatal critical care unit, and urgent care centers). An indication for use in total parenteral nutrition was also approved. 

 

Additional Development Possibilities

 

We are evaluating opportunities for the possible expansion for taurolidine as a platform. Patent applications have been filed in: wound closure, surgical meshes, wound management, and osteoarthritis, including visco-supplementation.   There exists a need to control and protect against surgical site infections upon wound closure.  We believe taurolidine can also offer benefits not currently available in marketed antimicrobial medical devices.  It can also provide a significant advantage in devices for burn victims and use in less sterile environments.  We are also involved in a pre-clinical research collaboration for the use of taurolidine as a possible treatment for rare orphan pediatric tumors.

 

Neutrolin

 

Market Opportunity

 

Central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters are an important and frequently used method for accessing the vasculature in hemodialysis (a form of dialysis where the patient’s blood is circulated through a dialysis filter), administering chemotherapy and basic fluids (total parenteral nutrition) in cancer patients and for cancer chemotherapy, long term antibiotic therapy, total parenteral nutrition (complete or partial dietary support via intravenous nutrients) and critical care/intensive care patients.

 

The treatment of patients undergoing hemodialysis requires access to their vascular system on a recurring basis. According to the 2015 United States Renal Disease System, there were 660,000 patients on hemodialysis.  It has been reported by Hemodialysis National Kidney Foundation that patients requiring a catheter represent over 63 million catheter/dialysis treatment days per year. In the United States, 5.7 million intensive care patients were admitted annually according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which is estimated to represent 28.5 million catheter days associated with ICU stays alone.  As of 2014, there were over 14.5 million patients in the United States living with cancer, with an estimated 7.7 million having had a long-term central venous catheter. When stages of disease and types of chemotherapy regime are considered, the number of catheter days per year are 90 million. Infections and thrombosis represent key complications among cancer patients with central venous catheters. One of the major and common complications for all patients requiring central venous catheters is catheter related blood stream infections, or CRBSIs, and the clinical complications associated with them. There are an estimated 250,000 CRBSIs each year.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated in the Journal of American Medicine that the total annual cost in the United States of treating all CRBI episodes and their complications would amount to approximately $6 billion.

Biofilm build up is the pathogenesis of both infections and thrombotic complications in central venous catheters. Prevention of CRBIs and inflammatory complications requires both decontamination of the internal surface of the catheter to prevent the systemic dissemination of organisms contained within the biofilm as well as an anticoagulant to retain patency. Biofilm forms when bacteria adhere to surfaces in aqueous environments and begin to excrete a slimy, glue-like substance that can anchor them to various types of materials, including intravenous catheters. The presence of biofilm has many adverse effects, including the ability to release bacteria into the blood stream. The current standard of catheter care is to instill a heparin lock solution at a concentration of 1,000 u/mL into each catheter lumen immediately following treatment, in order to prevent clotting between dialysis treatments. However, a heparin lock solution provides no protection from the risk of infection.

 

Currently, there are no pharmacologic agents approved in the U.S. for the prevention of CRBIs in central venous catheters. As noted above, we received the CE Mark approval for Neutrolin from the Medical Evaluation Board, or MEB, at the EU in July 2013.

 

We believe there is a significant need for prevention of CRBIs in the hemodialysis patient population as well as for other patient populations utilizing central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters, such as oncology/chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition and intensive care unit patients.

 

Neutrolin is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial/antifungal and anticoagulant combination that is active against common microbes including antibiotic-resistant strains and in addition may prevent biofilm formation. We believe that using Neutrolin as an anti-infective solution will significantly reduce the incidence of catheter-related blood stream infections, thus reducing the need for local and systemic antibiotics while prolonging catheter life.

 

Initially, we expect to sell Neutrolin directly to hospitals and also to key dialysis center operators. We anticipate that Medicare reimbursement could be available for Neutrolin in other catheter indications in intensive care, oncology and total parenteral nutrition through relevant hospital inpatient diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) or outpatient ambulatory payment classifications (APCs), the End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (ESRD PPS) base payment, or under the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Fee Schedule, depending on the setting of care. We also plan to seek separate reimbursement as a drug, where available under Medicare, through mechanisms such as pass-through status under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, the transitional drug add-on payment adjustment under the ESRD PPS, or reimbursement as a drug used with a DME infusion pump. We cannot fully anticipate changes in reimbursement requirements and mechanisms in the coming years, however, and we cannot be certain that Neutrolin will be granted separate reimbursement under any of these mechanisms.

 

Furthermore, we anticipate that the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and private payers will increasingly demand that manufacturers demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their product as part of the reimbursement review and approval process. With this in mind, we have incorporated health economic evaluations into our ongoing clinical studies to support this review in the context of the prospective use of Neutrolin in dialysis, the ICU and oncology settings.  Our studies might not be sufficient to support coverage or reimbursement at levels that allow providers to use Neutrolin.

 

Competitive Landscape

 

The drug and medical device industries are highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Neutrolin’s current and future competitors include large as well as specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly more experience in the development and commercialization of drugs and medical devices. Further, the development of new treatment methods could render Neutrolin non-competitive or obsolete.

 

We believe that the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of Neutrolin are efficacy and safety, as well as pricing and reimbursement.

 

Drug:

 

To the best of our knowledge, the following product candidates have been recognized for the prevention and treatment of catheter-related blood stream infections.

 

Medical Devices:

 

 

Some device companies have launched antibiotic or antimicrobial-coated catheters as short-term prevention of catheter infection. We believe these are not effective for hemodialysis catheters due to the long term use and high blood flow associated with hemodialysis.

 

Manufacturing

 

All of our manufacturing processes currently are, and we expect them to continue to be, outsourced to third parties. We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of drug product for use both commercially and in clinical trials. We intend to continue this practice in the future.

 

In April 2015, we entered into a Preliminary Services Agreement with [RC]2 Pharma Connect LLC (“RC2”), pursuant to which RC2 coordinates certain manufacturing services related to taurolidine, which is a key ingredient in Neutrolin. Specifically, RC2 undertook a critical parameters evaluation for our manufacturing needs and to coordinate the cGMP processes set forth in the agreement that we believe are necessary for the submission of our planned new drug application for Neutrolin to the FDA, as well as any foreign regulatory applications. The total cost for RC2’s services under the preliminary services agreement is approximately $1.7 million which is expected to be incurred under the terms of this agreement through the first quarter of 2017.  Since inception through December 31, 2016, RC2 completed and we recognized expense of approximately $1,505,000 for its services related to this agreement.  

 

We are also working with RC2 under several service agreements for an aggregate amount of $7.6 million for the manufacture of clinical supplies to support our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials.  During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we recognized research and development expense of approximately $2,359,000 and $1,348,000, respectively, related to these agreements. We may terminate these agreements upon 30 days written notice and are only obligated for project costs and reasonable project shut down costs provided through the date of termination. 

 

Navinta LLC, a U.S.-based active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, developer, provides API manufacturing (manufactured in India at an FDA-compliant facility) and a Drug Master File for Neutrolin, pursuant to a supply agreement dated December 7, 2009 (the “Navinta Agreement”). On March 24, 2015, we and Navinta LLC entered into an amendment to the Navinta Agreement to extend the term of the Navinta Agreement to March 31, 2016 and to lower the price per kilogram of API that we purchase from Navinta LLC under the Navinta Agreement. We also agreed to purchase a minimum amount of product from Navinta LLC during 2015, which replaced the prior minimum purchase requirement. The Navinta Agreement was terminable by either party upon 30 days written notice. The Navinta Agreement expired in accordance with its terms without delivery of the minimum purchase requirement and without any further obligations by either party.

 

We are confident that there exist a sufficient number of potential alternate sources for the drug substances required to produce our products, as well as third-party manufacturers, that we will be able to find alternate suppliers and third-party manufacturers in the event that our relationship with any supplier or third-party manufacturer deteriorates.

 

United States Government Regulation

 

The research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution, and marketing, among other things, of our products are extensively regulated by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. Our products may be classified by the FDA as a drug or a medical device depending upon the indications for use or claims. Because certain of our product candidates are considered as medical devices and others are considered as drugs for regulatory purposes, we intend to submit applications to regulatory agencies for approval or clearance of both medical devices and pharmaceutical product candidates.

 

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs and medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the agency’s implementing regulations. If we fail to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, clinical testing, and the approval process or after approval, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, adverse publicity, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution, among other actions. Any agency enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

 

Drug Approval Process

 

The research, development, and approval process in the United States and elsewhere is intensive and rigorous and generally takes many years to complete. The typical process required by the FDA before a therapeutic drug may be marketed in the United States includes:

 

 

During preclinical testing, studies are performed with respect to the chemical and physical properties of candidate formulations. These studies are subject to GLP requirements. Biological testing is typically done in animal models to demonstrate the activity of the compound against the targeted disease or condition and to assess the apparent effects of the new product candidate on various organ systems, as well as its relative therapeutic effectiveness and safety. An IND application must be submitted to the FDA and become effective before studies in humans may commence.

Clinical trial programs in humans generally follow a three-phase process. Typically, Phase 1 studies are conducted in small numbers of healthy volunteers or, on occasion, in patients afflicted with the target disease. Phase 1 studies are conducted to determine the metabolic and pharmacological action of the product candidate in humans and the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness. In Phase 2, studies are generally conducted in larger groups of patients having the target disease or condition in order to validate clinical endpoints, and to obtain preliminary data on the effectiveness of the product candidate and optimal dosing. This phase also helps determine further the safety profile of the product candidate. In Phase 3, large-scale clinical trials are generally conducted in patients having the target disease or condition to provide sufficient data for the statistical proof of effectiveness and safety of the product candidate as required by United States and foreign regulatory agencies. Typically two Phase 3 trials are required for marketing approval.

 

In the case of products for certain serious or life-threatening diseases, the initial human testing may be done in patients with the disease rather than in healthy volunteers. Because these patients are already afflicted with the target disease or condition, it is possible that such studies will also provide results traditionally obtained in Phase 2 studies. These studies are often referred to as “Phase 1/2” studies. However, even if patients participate in initial human testing and a Phase 1/2 study is carried out, the sponsor is still responsible for obtaining all the data usually obtained in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies.

 

Before proceeding with a study, sponsors may seek a written agreement known as a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, from the FDA regarding the design, size, and conduct of a clinical trial. Among other things, SPAs can cover clinical studies for pivotal trials whose data will form the primary basis to establish a product’s efficacy. SPAs help establish up-front agreement with the FDA about the adequacy of a clinical trial design to support a regulatory approval, but the agreement is not binding on the FDA if new circumstances arise. An SPA may only be modified with the agreement of the FDA and the trial sponsor or if the director of the FDA reviewing division determines that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the drug was identified after the testing began. There is no guarantee that a study will ultimately be adequate to support an approval even if the study is subject to an SPA.

 

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

 

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

 

IND sponsors are also required to submit a number of reports to the FDA during the course of a development program. For instance, sponsors are required to make annual reports to the FDA concerning the progress of their clinical trial programs as well as more frequent reports for certain serious adverse events. Sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments to the FDA. Investigators must also provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA. Information about certain clinical trials, including a description of the study and study results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on their clinicaltrials.gov website. Moreover, under the 21st Century Cures Act, manufacturers or distributors of investigational drugs for the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must have a publicly available policy concerning expanded access to investigational drugs.

 

United States law requires that studies conducted to support approval for product marketing be “adequate and well controlled.” In general, this means that either a placebo or a product already approved for the treatment of the disease or condition under study must be used as a reference control. The recently passed 21st Century Cures Act, however, provides for FDA acceptance of new kinds of data such as such as patient experience data, real world evidence, and, for appropriate indications sought through supplemental marketing applications, data summaries. Studies must also be conducted in compliance with good clinical practice requirements, and informed consent must be obtained from all study subjects.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen, or route of administration must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

 

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

 

The clinical trial process for a new compound can take ten years or more to complete. The FDA may prevent clinical trials from beginning or may place clinical trials on hold at any point in this process if, among other reasons, it concludes that study subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Trials may also be prevented from beginning or may be terminated by institutional review boards, or IRBs, who must review and approve all research involving human subjects and amendments thereto. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted. This includes the IRBs receiving information concerning unanticipated problems involving risk to subjects. Side effects or adverse events that are reported during clinical trials can delay, impede, or prevent marketing authorization. Similarly, adverse events that are reported after marketing authorization can result in additional limitations being placed on a product’s use and, potentially, withdrawal of the product from the market.

 

Following the completion of a clinical trial, the data are analyzed by the sponsoring company to determine whether the trial successfully demonstrated safety and effectiveness and whether a product approval application may be submitted. In the United States, if the product is regulated as a new drug, an NDA must be submitted and approved before commercial marketing may begin. The NDA must include a substantial amount of data and other information concerning the safety and effectiveness of the compound from laboratory, animal, and human clinical testing, as well as data and information on manufacturing, product quality and stability, and proposed product labeling.

 

Each domestic and foreign manufacturing establishment, including any contract manufacturers that we may decide to use, must be listed in the NDA and must be registered with the FDA. The application generally will not be approved until the FDA conducts a manufacturing inspection, approves the applicable manufacturing process for the drug product, and determines that the facility is in compliance with current cGMP requirements. Moreover, FDA will also typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to confirm that the applicable clinical trials were conducted in accordance with GCPs.

 

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, the FDA receives fees for reviewing an NDA, as well as annual fees for commercial manufacturing establishments and for approved products. These fees can be significant. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances. One basis for a waiver of the application user fee is if the applicant employs fewer than 500 employees, including employees of affiliates, the applicant does not have an approved marketing application for a product that has been introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, and the applicant, including its affiliates, is submitting its first marketing application. Product candidates that are designated as orphan drugs, which are further described below, are also not subject to application user fees unless the application includes an indication other than the orphan indication. Under certain circumstances, orphan products may also be exempt from product and establishment fees.

 

Each NDA submitted for FDA approval is usually reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability. Following this review, the FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

 

Once accepted for filing, the FDA’s review of an application may involve review and recommendations by an independent FDA advisory committee. The FDA must refer applications for drugs that contain active ingredients, including any ester or salt of the active ingredients that have not previously been approved by the FDA to an advisory committee or provide in an action letter a summary for not referring it to an advisory committee. The FDA may also refer drugs to advisory committees when it is determined that an advisory committee’s expertise would be beneficial to the regulatory decision-making process, including the evaluation of novel products and the use of new technology. An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, which review, evaluate, and make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter; withdraw the application; or request an opportunity for a hearing. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval and describes all of the specific deficiencies that the FDA identified in the NDA. A CRL generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA, and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes; or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

 

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved therapeutic uses for the product as described in the product labeling, require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, require that additional studies be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval, impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS or otherwise limit the scope of any approval.

 

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

 

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

 

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

 

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that are intended to treat serious conditions and, if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA is to review an application within six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines, of the 60-day filing date for new molecular entities.

 

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

 

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

A final new program to expedite the development of drug products is the limited population pathway for antibacterial and antifungal drugs, which was passed as part of the recent enacted 21st Century Cures Act. Under this program, a sponsor can request drug approval under this new pathway for an antibacterial or antifungal drug if the drug is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening infection in a limited population of patients with unmet needs. Under this program, the FDA’s determination of safety and effectiveness would reflect the risk-benefit profile of the drug in the intended limited population, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the infection and the availability of alternative treatments in the limited population. The drug may be approved for the limited population notwithstanding a lack of evidence to fully establish a favorable benefit-risk profile in a broader population. Under this program, the FDA must provide prompt advice to sponsors seeking approval under this pathway to enable them to plan a development program. If approved under this pathway, certain post-marketing requirements would apply, such as required labeling and advertising statements and pre-distribution submission of promotional materials to FDA. If after approval for a limited population, a product receives a broader approval, the FDA may remove such post-marketing restrictions. While a drug may only be approved for a limited population under this program, the 21st Century Cures Act states that it is not intended to restrict the prescribing of antimicrobial drugs or other products by healthcare professionals.

 

Exclusivity

 

For approved drug products, market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA provide periods of regulatory exclusivity, which gives the holder of an approved NDA limited protection from new competition in the marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved drug.

 

Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A Section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA is an application in which the applicant, in part, relies on investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics, and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product. Limited changes must be pre-approved by the FDA via a suitability petition.

 

Five years of exclusivity are available to New Chemical Entities, or NCEs. A NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion, excluding those appended portions of the molecule, that cause the drug to be an ester, salt, including a salt with hydrogen or coordination bonds, or other noncovalent derivatives, such as a complex, chelate, or clathrate, of the molecule, responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review and make an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA approval effective for an application submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, however, may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if the applicant submits a certification stating that the patents listed by the NCE sponsor in FDA’s list of Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or Orange Book, are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which approval is sought. Five-year exclusivity will also not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

 

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

 

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

 

For certain infectious disease products, the above discussed exclusivity periods may be further extended under the FDA’s qualified infectious disease product program. A qualified infections disease product, or QIDP, is an antibacterial or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by an antibacterial or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens; or qualifying pathogens designated by the FDA that has the potential to pose a serious threat to public health. If the FDA approves an NDA for a drug designated as a QIDP, the NCE exclusivity period is extended to ten years and the FDA may not accept applications for nine years. Moreover, if a product is designated as a QIDP and an orphan product, the orphan product exclusivity period is extended to twelve years. These extensions are in addition to any extension that an application may be entitled to under the pediatric exclusivity provisions. To receive a QIDP designation, the sponsor must request that the FDA designate the product as such prior to the submission of an NDA. This designation may not be withdrawn except if the FDA finds that the request for designation contained an untrue statement of material fact. QIDPs are also eligible for fast track status and priority review.

 

Post Approval Requirements

 

Significant legal and regulatory requirements also apply after FDA approval to market under an NDA. These include, among other things, requirements related to adverse event and other reporting, product tracking and tracing, suspect and illegitimate product investigations and notifications, product advertising and promotion and ongoing adherence to cGMPs, as well as the need to submit appropriate new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. The FDA also enforces the requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act which, among other things, imposes various requirements in connection with the distribution of product samples to physicians. The FDA enforces these requirements through, among other ways, periodic announced and unannounced facility inspections.

 

The FDA also strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for unapproved indications that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies, however, are allowed to promote their drug products only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including, but not limited to, criminal and civil penalties under the FDCA and the civil False Claims Act, or FCA, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements, debarment, and refusal of government contracts.

 

The regulatory framework applicable to the production, distribution, marketing, and/or sale, of our products may change significantly from the current descriptions provided herein in the time that it may take for any of our products to reach a point at which a NDA is approved. Moreover, individual states may have laws and regulations that we must comply with, such as laws and regulations concerning licensing, promotion, sampling, distribution, and reporting.

 

Overall research, development, and approval times depend on a number of factors, including the period of review at the FDA, the number of questions posed by the FDA during review, how long it takes to respond to the FDA’s questions, the severity or life-threatening nature of the disease in question, the availability of alternative treatments, the availability of clinical investigators and eligible patients, the rate of enrollment of patients in clinical trials, and the risks and benefits demonstrated in the clinical trials.

Fraud and Abuse, Data Privacy and Security, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

 

Our business activities, including but not limited to research, sales, promotion, distribution, medical education, and other activities following product approval, if any, will be subject to regulation by numerous federal and state regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including potentially the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services and its various divisions, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and state and local governments. Our business activities must comply with numerous healthcare laws, including but not limited to, anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations as well as data privacy and security laws and regulations, which are described below.

 

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, furnishing, or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, in whole or in part. The term “remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. There are certain statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, reimbursement, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, of 2010, as amended, modified the intent requirement under the Anti-Kickback Statute, such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA also provided that a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.

 

The federal FCA prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The FCA authorizes imposition of treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim submitted. For violations after November 2, 2015, the penalty has increased from a minimum of $5,500 to $10,781, and a maximum of $11,000 to $21,563. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government, including an invoice. Accordingly, FCA penalties for high claim volume products like pharmaceuticals have frequently aggregated into millions of dollars. The FCA has been used to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper use of Medicare provider or supplier numbers when detailing a provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses not expressly approved by the FDA in a drug’s label, and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to product quality or services rendered. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have further been sued under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the FCA. Liability may be predicated on reckless disregard for the truth. FCA actions may be brought by the government or may be brought by private individuals on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions. If the government decides to intervene in a qui tam action and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. Since 2004, these False Claims Act lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to substantial civil and criminal settlements regarding certain sales practices and promoting off label drug uses. Further, liability may be predicated on non-compliance with federal laws and regulations under the theory of implied certification. However, the Supreme Court imposed a materiality standard for liability under this theory – the non-compliance must be material to the government’s payment decision. FCA liability may also be imposed for Medicare or Medicaid overpayments, for example, overpayments caused by understated rebate amounts that are not refunded within 60 days of discovering the overpayment, even if the overpayment was not caused by a false or fraudulent act.

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

 

The civil monetary penalties statute is another potential statute under which biopharmaceutical companies may be subject to enforcement. Among other things, the civil monetary penalties statute imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented, or caused to be presented, claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows, or should know, is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. In 2016, the Department of Justice doubled the amount of these penalties, which are specified in the civil FCA.

 

Many states have also adopted laws similar to each of the above federal laws, which may be broader in scope. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; or require drug manufacturers to track and report information related to payments, gifts, and other items of value to physicians and other healthcare providers. These laws may affect our future sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens.

 

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties or other enforcement actions, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, debarment from receiving government contracts or refusal of new orders under existing contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Enforcement actions can be brought by federal or state governments, or as qui tam actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government under the civil False Claims Act if the violations are alleged to have caused the government to pay a false or fraudulent claim.

 

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

 

Medical Device Approval Process

 

In addition to our lead product candidate Neutrolin, which is subject to regulation by the FDA as a drug, we are developing other products that may be regulated as medical devices in the United States. The FDA regulates the design, development, clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, distribution, import and export, sale and promotion of medical devices. Unless an exemption applies or a product is a Class I device, all medical devices must receive either 510(k) clearance or an approved pre-market application, or PMA, from the FDA before they may be commercially distributed in the U.S. In addition, certain modifications made to marketed devices also may require 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA supplement.

 

To obtain a 510(k) clearance for a device, a pre-market notification to the FDA must be submitted demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. The FDA attempts to respond to a 510(k) pre-market notification within 90 days of submission, but as a practical matter, pre-market clearance can take significantly longer, potentially up to one year or more. The PMA process is much more demanding and uncertain than the 510(k) pre-market notification process and must be supported by extensive clinical, technical and other information, including at least one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation. The FDA has 180 days to review an accepted PMA, although the review generally occurs over a significantly longer period of time, and can take up to several years.

 

After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply, including:

 

Our manufacturing facilities, as well as those of certain of our suppliers, are subject to periodic and for-cause inspections by the FDA and other governmental authorities to verify compliance with the QSR and other regulatory requirements.

 

Reimbursement and Pricing Controls

 

In many of the markets where we or our collaborative partners have targeted or will target Neutrolin for sale, laws control the prices charged to certain purchasers of pharmaceutical products and the prices paid by drug reimbursement programs through varying price control mechanisms. Public and private health care payors control costs and influence drug pricing through a variety of mechanisms, including through negotiating rebates with the manufacturers, limiting the reimbursement rate paid to providers, and using tiered formularies, co-payment structures that incentivize beneficiaries to request lower cost alternatives, and other mechanisms that provide preferential access to certain drugs over others within a therapeutic class. Federal and commercial payors use competition for health plan coverage and market share as leverage to obtain rebates on products they reimburse, which impacts the manufacturer’s net realization on the sale of the products. These rebates may be paid on drugs sold at a mandatory discount. Additionally, federal and commercial health plans may choose to reimburse dialysis providers for dialysis services and drugs used in the provision of those services through a single bundled payment rate, which tends to make cost a more important factor for providers when making drug purchase decisions than it would otherwise be if the providers were reimbursed for drugs on a stand-alone basis. Payors also set other criteria to govern the uses of a drug that will be deemed medically appropriate and therefore reimbursed or otherwise covered. In particular, many public and private health care payors limit reimbursement and coverage to the uses of a drug that are either approved by the FDA or that are supported by other appropriate evidence (for example, published medical literature) and appear in a recognized drug compendium. Drug compendia are publications that summarize the available medical evidence for particular drug products and identify which uses of a drug are supported or not supported by the available evidence, whether or not such uses have been approved by the FDA.

 

Foreign Regulatory Requirements

 

We and our collaborative partners may be subject to widely varying foreign regulations, which may be quite different from those of the FDA, governing clinical trials, manufacture, product registration and approval, and pharmaceutical sales. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, we or our collaboration partners must obtain a separate approval for a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries prior to the commencement of product marketing in those countries. In certain countries, regulatory authorities also establish pricing and reimbursement criteria. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. In addition, under current United States law, there are restrictions on the export of products not approved by the FDA, depending on the country involved and the status of the product in that country.

 

International sales of medical devices manufactured in the U.S. that are not approved by the FDA for use in the U.S., or are banned or deviate from lawful performance standards, are subject to FDA export requirements. Exported devices are subject to the regulatory requirements of each country to which the device is exported. Some countries do not have medical device regulations, but in most foreign countries, medical devices are regulated. Frequently, regulatory approval may first be obtained in a foreign country prior to application in the U.S. to take advantage of differing regulatory requirements. Most countries outside of the U.S. require that product approvals be recertified on a regular basis, generally every five years. The recertification process requires that we evaluate any device changes and any new regulations or standards relevant to the device and conduct appropriate testing to document continued compliance. Where recertification applications are required, they must be approved in order to continue selling our products in those countries.

 

In the European Union, in order for our product candidates to be marketed and sold, we are required to comply with the Medical Devices Directive and obtain CE Mark certification. The CE Mark certification encompasses an extensive review of our quality management system which is inspected by a notified body’s auditor as part of a Stage 1 and 2 International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, 13485:2003 audit, in accordance with worldwide recognized ISO standards and applicable European Medical Devices Directives for quality management systems for medical device manufacturers. Once the quality management system and design dossier has been successfully audited by a notified body and reviewed and approved by a competent authority, a CE certificate for the medical device will be issued. We are also required to comply with other foreign regulations such as the requirement that we obtain Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare approval before we can launch new products in Japan. The time required to obtain these foreign approvals to market our products may vary from U.S. approvals, and requirements for these approvals may differ from those required by the FDA.

 

Medical device laws and regulations are in effect in many of the countries in which we may do business outside the United States. These laws and regulations range from comprehensive device approval requirements for our medical device product to requests for product data or certifications. The number and scope of these requirements can be complex and could increase. We may not be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approvals in such countries and we may be required to incur significant costs in obtaining or maintaining our foreign regulatory approvals. In addition, the export of certain of our products which have not yet been cleared for domestic commercial distribution may be subject to FDA export restrictions. Any failure to obtain product approvals in a timely fashion or to comply with state or foreign medical device laws and regulations may have a serious adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Intellectual Property

 

CRMD003 and CRMD004

 

On January 30, 2008, we entered into a License and Assignment Agreement, or the NDP License Agreement, with ND Partners, LLC, or NDP. Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted us exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the “NDP Technology”). We acquired such licenses and patents through our assignment and assumption of NDP’s rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann, and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. NDP also granted us exclusive licenses, with the right to grant sublicenses, to use and display certain trademarks in connection with the NDP Technology. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, we paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP an equity interest in our company consisting of 365,534 shares of common stock as of December 31, 2010. In addition, we are required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones and the number of shares held in escrow is 145,543 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with $2,500,000 remaining at December 31, 2016. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval processes and certain worldwide net sales amounts.

 

On April 11, 2013, we entered into an amendment to the NDP License Agreement. Under Article 6 of the NDP License Agreement, we were obligated to make a milestone payment of $500,000 to NDP upon the first issuance of a CE Mark for a licensed product, which payment was payable to NDP within 30 days after such issuance. Pursuant to the terms of the amendment, we and NDP agreed to delay such milestone payment to a time, to be chosen by us, anytime within twelve months after the achievement of such issuance. As consideration for the amendment, we issued NDP a warrant to purchase 125,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $1.50 per share. The warrant is exercisable immediately upon issuance and has a term of five years. The warrant contains a cashless exercise feature and standard adjustment features in the event of a stock split, stock dividend, recapitalization or similar events.

 

During the year ended December 31, 2013, a milestone payment of $500,000 was earned by NDP upon the first issuance of the CE Mark for Neutrolin, which was converted in January 2014 into 50,000 Series C-3 non-voting preferred stock and 250,000 warrants at an exercise price of $1.50 per share. During the year ended December 31, 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 36,386 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of December 31, 2016 is 109,157 shares of common stock. There were no milestones achieved in 2015 or 2016.

 

The NDP License Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis upon the earlier of (i) the expiration of the last patent claim under the NDP License Agreement in a given country, or (ii) the payment of all milestone payments and release of all shares of our common stock held in escrow under the NDP License Agreement. Upon the expiration of the NDP License Agreement in each country, we will have an irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid-up, royalty-free exclusive license to the NDP Technology in such country. The NDP License Agreement also may be terminated by NDP if we materially breach or default under the NDP License Agreement and that breach is not cured within 60 days following the delivery of written notice to us, or by us on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, our rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.

 

On January 30, 2008, we also entered into an Exclusive License and Consulting Agreement with Dr. Polaschegg. Pursuant to the Polaschegg License Agreement, Dr. Polaschegg granted us an exclusive, worldwide license for a gel lock invention and certain taurolidine treatments and the corresponding United States patent applications (the “Polaschegg Technology”). The Polaschegg Technology served as a basis for CRMD004, which is the gel formation of Neutrolin. As consideration for the rights to the Polaschegg Technology, in addition to an initial fee of $5,000, we agreed to pay Dr. Polaschegg certain royalty payments ranging from 1% to 3% of the net sales of the Polaschegg Technology. The Polaschegg License Agreement also set forth certain minimum royalty payments (on an annual basis) to be made to Dr. Polaschegg in connection with the Polaschegg Technology, which payments range from $10,000 to $45,000. Additional minimum royalty payments would become payable to Dr. Polaschegg if he developed new intellectual property that was applied to the Polaschegg Technology. As of December 31, 2015, we recorded an aggregate of approximately $300,000 in licensing and minimum royalty payments under the Polaschegg License Agreement.

 

We had the right to terminate the Polaschegg License Agreement with respect to the gel lock invention or taurolidine treatments (individually or together) upon 60 days notice. Dr. Polaschegg had the right to terminate the Polaschegg License Agreement with respect to the gel lock invention and/or taurolidine treatments if no product based on the particular portion of Polaschegg Technology has been made available to the market by the later of eight years after (i) the date of the Polaschegg License Agreement, and (ii) the priority date of any new patent. If the Polaschegg License Agreement is terminated with respect to any piece of Polaschegg Technology by either party, all rights with respect to such portion of Polaschegg Technology will revert to Dr. Polaschegg. In November 2015, we terminated the Polaschegg License Agreement.

 

We believe that the patents and patent applications we have licensed pursuant to the NDP License Agreement cover effective solutions to the various problems discussed previously when using taurolidine in clinical applications, and specifically in hemodialysis applications. We intend to file additional patent applications to cover any additional related subject matter we develop. We currently have five non-provisional patent applications, five international (PCT) patent applications and four provisional patent applications pending which cover additional applications using taurolidine in, among others, sutures, hydrogels, meshes, transdermal and biofilm products.

 

Employees

 

As of March 10, 2017, we had fourteen full time employees, including our customer service representative and office manager in Germany. We also engage various consultants and contractors for project management and research and development, manufacturing and regulatory development, marketing, financing, sales and marketing and administrative activities.

 

Corporate Information

 

We were organized as a Delaware corporation on July 28, 2006 under the name “Picton Holding Company, Inc.” and we changed our corporate name to “CorMedix Inc.” on January 18, 2007. Our principal executive offices are located at 1430 US Highway 206, Suite 200, Bedminster, New Jersey 07921. Our telephone number is (908) 517-9500.

 

We maintain a website at www.cormedix.com; however, the information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this report.  This report and all of our filings under the Exchange Act, including copies of annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge through our website on the date we file those materials with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").  Such filings are also available to the public on the internet at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.  The public may also read and copy any document that we file at the SEC's Public Reference Room located at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official business days during the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.  For further information on the Public Reference Room, the public is instructed to call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0300.

 

 

 

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

 

We have a history of operating losses, expect to incur additional operating losses in the future and may never be profitable.

 

 

We have received a going concern opinion from our registered public accounting firm.

 

Our operations are subject to a number of factors that can affect our operating results and financial condition. Such factors include, but are not limited to: the results of clinical testing and trial activities of our product candidates; the ability to obtain regulatory approval to market our products; ability to manufacture successfully; competition from products manufactured and sold or being developed by other companies; the price of, and demand for, our products; our ability to negotiate favorable licensing or other manufacturing and marketing agreements for our products; and our ability to raise capital to support our operations.

 

To date, our commercial operations have not generated sufficient revenues to enable profitability. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $119.2 million, and incurred net losses from operations of $24.6 million for the year then ended. Based on the current development plans for Neutrolin in both the U.S. and foreign markets (including the ongoing hemodialysis Phase 3 clinical trial in the U.S.) and our other operating requirements, management believes that the existing cash at December 31, 2016 will not be sufficient to fund operations for at least the next 12 months following the filing of this annual report on Form 10-K. These factors raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. Additionally, we will need additional funding to complete the hemodialysis clinical trial in the U.S. which commenced in December 2015 as well as to initiate the planned Phase 3 clinical trial in oncology patients with catheters.

 

As a result of the above matters, our independent auditors have indicated in their report on our December 31, 2016 financial statements that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. A “going concern” opinion indicates that the financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets, or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result if we do not continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated balance sheet as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of our creditors, and potentially be available for distribution to our stockholders, in the event of liquidation.

Our continued operations will ultimately depend on our ability to raise additional capital through various potential sources, such as equity and/or debt financings, strategic relationships, or out-licensing of our products in order to complete our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials and until we achieve profitability, if ever. We can provide no assurances that such financing or strategic relationships will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Without this funding, we could be required to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of our research and development programs which would likely have a material adverse effect on our business.

  

We will need to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements. Any additional funds that we obtain may not be on terms favorable to us or our stockholders and may require us to relinquish valuable rights. 

 

We believe that our cash resources as of December 31, 2016, will not be sufficient to enable us to fund our projected operating requirements for at least the next 12 months following the balance sheet date. We will need additional funding thereafter to complete our ongoing Phase 3 hemodialysis clinical trial in the U.S., as well initiate as our planned Phase 3 clinical trial in the U.S. in oncology patients with catheters. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may not be able to complete our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial, commence and complete our planned Phase 3 clinical trial or commercialize Neutrolin and we could be required to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of our research and development programs. We can provide no assurances that any financing or strategic relationships will be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. We expect to incur increases in our cash used in operations as we continue to commercialize Neutrolin in Europe and other markets, conduct our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial and prepare for our planned Phase 3 clinical trial in oncology patients, seek FDA approval of Neutrolin in the U.S., commercialize Neutrolin in Europe and other markets, pursue business development activities, and incur additional legal costs to defend our intellectual property.

 

        To raise needed capital, we may sell additional equity or debt securities, obtain a bank credit facility, or enter into a corporate collaboration or licensing arrangement. The sale of additional equity or debt securities, if convertible, could result in dilution to our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in fixed obligations and could also result in covenants that would restrict our operations. Raising additional funds through collaboration or licensing arrangements with third parties may require us to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us or our stockholders.

 

Our efforts to explore strategic alternatives aimed at accelerating Neutrolin’s development and commercialization and maximizing shareholder value may not result in any definitive transaction or deliver the expected benefits, and may create a distraction for our management and uncertainty that may adversely affect our operating results and business.

 

Strategic alternatives we may pursue could include, but are not limited to, joint ventures or partnering or other collaboration agreements, licensing arrangements, or another transaction intended to maximize shareholder value, such as a merger, a sale of the Company or some or all of its assets, or another strategic transaction. In March 2015, the Board commenced a process to evaluate our strategic alternatives in order to accelerate the global development of Neutrolin and maximize shareholder value.  The Board previously engaged the investment bank Evercore Group L.L.C. to provide financial advice and assist the Board with its evaluation process. After the process with Evercore, we announced in July 2015 that we expect to continue to pursue product development and commercialization opportunities as we move forward with the planned Phase 3 clinical trials, rather than pursuing a possible sale of our company at that time. No transaction materialized pursuant to the Evercore engagement.   We terminated the arrangement with Evercore in July 2016. Although we will remain open to and consider strategic partnerships, there can be no assurance that any transaction will present itself.

 

There are various uncertainties and risks relating to our evaluation and negotiation of possible strategic alternatives and our ability to consummate a definitive transaction, including:

 

 

 

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates 

 

Our only product is only approved in Europe and is still in development in the U. S. 

 

        Neutrolin currently and for at least the near future is our only current product as well as product candidate. Neturolin has received CE Mark approval in Europe, and we launched it in Germany in December 2013. We also are pursuing development of Neutrolin in the U.S. Our product commercialization and development efforts may not lead to commercially viable products for any of several reasons. For example, our product candidates may fail to be proven safe and effective in clinical trials, or we may have inadequate financial or other resources to pursue development efforts for our product candidates. Even if approved, our products may not be accepted in the marketplace. Neutrolin will require significant additional development, clinical trials, regulatory clearances and/or investment by us or our collaborators as we continue its commercialization, as will any of our other products. Specifically, we plan to expand marketing of Neutrolin in other foreign countries and to develop Neutrolin for sale in the U.S., which will take time and capital.

 

We have entered into agreements with a Saudi Arabian company to market and sell Neutrolin in Saudi Arabia, and with a South Korean company to market, sell and distribute Neutrolin in South Korea upon receipt of regulatory approval in that country. We also have some commercial presence in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. Consequently, we will be dependent on these companies and individuals for the success of sales in those countries and any other countries in which we receive regulatory approval and in which we contract with third parties for the marketing, sale and/or distribution of Neutrolin. If these companies or individuals do not perform for whatever reason, our business, prospects and results of operations will me materially adversely affected. Finding a suitable replacement organization or individual for these or any other companies or individuals with whom we might contract could be difficult, which would further harm our business, prospects and results of operations.

 

Successful development and commercialization of our products is uncertain.

 

 

 

Because of these risks, our development efforts may not result in any commercially viable products. If a significant portion of these development efforts are not successfully completed, required regulatory approvals are not obtained or any approved products are not commercialized successfully, our business, financial condition, and results of operations will be materially harmed.

 

Clinical trials required for our product candidates are expensive and time-consuming, and their outcome is uncertain.

 

 

 

The results from early pre-clinical and clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of results to be obtained in later clinical trials. Accordingly, even if we obtain positive results from early pre-clinical or clinical trials, we may not achieve the same success in later clinical trials.

 

Our clinical trials may be conducted in patients with serious or life-threatening diseases for whom conventional treatments have been unsuccessful or for whom no conventional treatment exists, and in some cases, our product is expected to be used in combination with approved therapies that themselves have significant adverse event profiles. During the course of treatment, these patients could suffer adverse medical events or die for reasons that may or may not be related to our products. We cannot ensure that safety issues will not arise with respect to our products in clinical development.

 

Clinical trials may not demonstrate statistically significant safety and effectiveness to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for product candidates. The failure of clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness for the desired indications could harm the development of our product candidates. Such a failure could cause us to abandon a product candidate and could delay development of other product candidates. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials would delay the filing of any NDA or any Premarket Approval Application, or PMA, with the FDA and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate product revenues. Any change in, or termination of, our clinical trials could materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

 

If we fail to comply with international regulatory requirements we could be subject to regulatory delays, fines or other penalties.

 

 

 

The CE Mark is a mandatory conformity mark for products to be sold in the European Economic Area. Currently, 28 countries in Europe require products to bear CE Marking. To market in Europe, a product must first obtain the certifications necessary to affix the CE Mark. The CE Mark is an international symbol of adherence to the Medical Device Directives and the manufacturer’s declaration that the product complies with essential requirements. Compliance with these requirements is ascertained within a certified Quality Management System (QMS) pursuant to ISO 13485. In order to obtain and to maintain a CE Mark, a product must be in compliance with the applicable quality assurance provisions of the aforementioned ISO and obtain certification of its quality assurance systems by a recognized European Union notified body. We received CE Mark approval for Neutrolin on July 5, 2013. However, certain individual countries within the European Union require further approval by their national regulatory agencies. Failure to receive or maintain these other requisite approvals could prohibit us from marketing and selling Neutrolin in the entire European Economic Area or elsewhere.

 

We do not have, and may never obtain, the regulatory approvals we need to market our product candidates outside of the European Union.

 

While we have received the CE Mark approval for Neutrolin in Europe, certain individual countries within the European Union require further approval by their national regulatory agencies. Failure to receive or maintain these other requisite approvals could prohibit us from marketing and selling Neutrolin in the entire European Economic Area. In addition, we will need regulatory approval to market and sell Neutrolin in foreign countries outside of Europe. We have received regulatory approval in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

 

In the United States, we have no current application for, and have not received the regulatory approvals required for, the commercial sale of any of our products. None of our product candidates has been determined to be safe and effective in the United States, and we have not submitted an NDA or PMA to the FDA for any product. We have received approval from the FDA to proceed with our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial for Neutrolin in hemodialysis catheters and our planned Phase 3 trial in oncology patients with catheters, which is subject to finalization of the protocol with the FDA. In December 2015, we initiated the Phase 3 trial in hemodialysis catheters; however, we will not initiate the Phase 3 trial in oncology patients with catheters until we receive sufficient funding. We are seeking one or more strategic partners or other sources of capital to complete the Phase 3 trial in hemodialysis and to start the Phase 3 trial for oncology patients with catheters. However, we might not obtain any commercial partner or financing and may never start the Phase 3 clinical trial for oncology patients with catheters.

 

It is possible that Neutrolin will not receive any further approval or that any of our other product candidates will be approved for marketing. Failure to obtain regulatory approvals, or delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, would adversely affect the successful commercialization of Neutrolin or any other drugs or products that we or our partners develop, impose additional costs on us or our collaborators, diminish any competitive advantages that we or our partners may attain, and/or adversely affect our cash flow.

 

Even if approved, our products will be subject to extensive post-approval regulation. 

 

 

The successful commercialization of Neutrolin will depend on obtaining coverage and reimbursement for use of Neutrolin from third-party payors.

 

          Sales of pharmaceutical products largely depend on the reimbursement of patients’ medical expenses by government health care programs and/or private health insurers, both in the U.S. and abroad. Further, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products. We initially expect to sell Neutrolin directly to hospitals and key dialysis center operators, but also plan to expand its usage into intensive care, oncology and total parenteral nutrition patients needing catheters, including Medicare patients. All of these potential customers are healthcare providers who depend upon reimbursement by government and commercial insurance payors for dialysis and other treatments. Reimbursement is strictly governed by these insurance payors. We believe that Neutrolin would be eligible for coverage under various reimbursement programs, including hospital inpatient diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), outpatient ambulatory payment classification (APCs) and the End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (ESRD PPS) or under the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Fee Schedule, depending on the treatment setting. However, coverage by any of these reimbursement programs is not assured, and even if coverage is granted it could later be revoked or modified under future regulations. Further, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers Medicare and works with states to administer Medicaid, has adopted and will continue to adopt and/or amend rules governing reimbursement for specific treatments, including those we intend to address such as dialysis and ESRD PPS. We anticipate that CMS and private insurers will increasingly demand that manufacturers demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their products as part of the reimbursement review and approval process. Rising healthcare costs have also lead many European and other foreign countries to adopt healthcare reform proposals and medical cost containment measures. Any measures affecting the reimbursement programs of these governmental and private insurance payors, including any uncertainty in the medical community regarding their nature and effect on reimbursement programs, could have an adverse effect on purchasing decisions regarding Neutrolin, as well as limit the prices we may charge for Neutrolin. The failure to obtain or maintain reimbursement coverage for Neutrolin or any other products could materially harm our operations.

 

In anticipation that the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and private payers will demand that we demonstrate the cost effectiveness of Neutrolin as part of the reimbursement review and approval process, we have incorporated health economic evaluations into our ongoing clinical studies to support this review in the context of the prospective use of Neutrolin in dialysis, the ICU and oncology settings.  However, our studies might not be sufficient to support coverage or reimbursement at levels that allow providers to use Neutrolin.

 

Physicians and patients may not accept and use our products.

 

 

 

Because we expect sales of Neutrolin to generate substantially all of our product revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of Neutrolin to find market acceptance would harm our business and would require us to seek additional financing.  

 

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

 

We might not be able to access any of the $40.0 million available to us under our new at-the-market common stock sales program.

 

In August 2016, we entered into a sales agreement with the FBR Capital Markets & Co. whereby we can sell up to $40 million of shares of our common stock. However, pursuant to a Consent and Exchange Agreement between us and Manchester, dated September 15, 2014 (and entered into as part of our removal of anti-dilution, price reset and change of control provisions in various securities that had caused those securities to be classified as derivative liabilities), (as amended in April 2015), Manchester has a right of participation in equity financings undertaken by us prior to September 15, 2017. The participation right extends to the at-the-market common stock sales program. Any common stock sold as part of our new at-the-market common stock sales program would be subject to Manchester’s participation right, Manchester’s waiver of its participation right or another arrangement with Manchester. In the event we are not able to obtain such a waiver or reach an agreement with Manchester, we would not be able to sell shares of common stock in our new at-the-market program, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operations.

 

Competition and technological change may make our product candidates and technologies less attractive or obsolete. 

 

 

There can be no assurance that Neutrolin or any other product candidate will be accepted by the marketplace as readily as these or other competing treatments. Furthermore, if our competitors’ products are approved before ours, it could be more difficult for us to obtain approval from the FDA or any other regulatory agency. Even if our products are successfully developed and approved for use by all governing regulatory bodies, there can be no assurance that physicians and patients will accept any of our products as a treatment of choice. 

 

Furthermore, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry is diverse, complex, and rapidly changing. By its nature, the business risks associated with the industry are numerous and significant. The effects of competition, intellectual property disputes, market acceptance, and FDA or other regulatory agency regulations preclude us from forecasting revenues or income with certainty or even confidence.

 

We face the risk of product liability claims and the amount of insurance coverage we hold now or in the future may not be adequate to cover all liabilities we might incur.

 

We currently carry product liability insurance that covers our clinical trials. We cannot predict all of the possible harms or side effects that may result and, therefore, the amount of insurance coverage we hold may not be adequate to cover all liabilities we might incur. Our insurance covers bodily injury and property damage arising from our clinical trials, subject to industry-standard terms, conditions and exclusions. This coverage includes the sale of commercial products. We have expanded our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products due to the receipt of the CE Mark approval, but we may be unable to maintain such coverage or obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any other products approved for marketing.

 

If we are unable to obtain insurance at an acceptable cost or otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, we may be exposed to significant liabilities, which may materially and adversely affect our business and financial position. If we are sued for any injury allegedly caused by our or our collaborators’ products and do not have sufficient insurance coverage, our liability could exceed our total assets and our ability to pay the liability. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us would decrease our cash and could cause the value of our capital stock to decrease.

 

We may be exposed to liability claims associated with the use of hazardous materials and chemicals.

 

 

Healthcare policy changes, including reimbursement policies for drugs and medical devices, may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Market acceptance and sales of Neutrolin or any other product candidates that we develop will depend on reimbursement policies and may be affected by health care reform measures in the United States and abroad. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for Neutrolin or any other product candidates that we develop. Also, we cannot be sure that the amount of reimbursement available, if any, will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our products. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize Neutrolin or any other product candidates that we develop.

 

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the health care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the Healthcare Reform Act, substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. The Healthcare Reform Act contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes and fraud and abuse, which will impact existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program. We anticipate that if we obtain approval for our products, some of our revenue may be derived from U.S. government healthcare programs, including Medicare. Furthermore, beginning in 2011, the Healthcare Reform Act imposed a non-deductible excise tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs,” which includes innovator drugs and biologics (excluding orphan drugs or generics) to U.S. government programs. We expect that the Healthcare Reform Act and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future could have an adverse effect on our industry generally and our products specifically.

 

In addition to the Healthcare Reform Act, we expect that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payors to keep healthcare costs down while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for any products that are approved or the amounts of reimbursement available for these products from governmental agencies or other third-party payors or may increase the tax requirements for life sciences companies such as ours. While it is too early to predict what effect the Healthcare Reform Act or any future legislation or regulation will have on us, such laws could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Health administration authorities in countries other than the United States may not provide reimbursement for Neutrolin or any of our other product candidates at rates sufficient for us to achieve profitability, or at all. Like the United States, these countries could adopt health care reform proposals and could materially alter their government-sponsored health care programs by reducing reimbursement rates.

 

Any reduction in reimbursement rates under Medicare or private insurers or foreign health care programs could negatively affect the pricing of our products. If we are not able to charge a sufficient amount for our products, then our margins and our profitability will be adversely affected.

 

If we lose key management or scientific personnel, cannot recruit qualified employees, directors, officers, or other personnel or experience increases in compensation costs, our business may materially suffer.

 

 

If we are unable to hire additional qualified personnel, our ability to grow our business may be harmed.

 

 

We may not successfully manage our growth.

 

 

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

 

If we materially breach or default under any of our license agreements, the licensor party to such agreement will have the right to terminate the license agreement, which termination may materially harm our business.

 

 

If we and our licensors do not obtain protection for and successfully defend our respective intellectual property rights, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our research and development efforts to develop competing products. 

 

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining further patent protection for our products and other technologies and successfully defending any patents that we currently have or will obtain against third-party challenges. The patents which we currently believe are most material to our business are as follows: 

 

We are currently seeking further patent protection for our compounds and methods of treating diseases. However, the patent process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in protecting our products by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following: 

 

 

In addition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, and patent offices in other jurisdictions have often required that patent applications concerning pharmaceutical and/or biotechnology-related inventions be limited or narrowed substantially to cover only the specific innovations exemplified in the patent application, thereby limiting the scope of protection against competitive challenges. Thus, even if we or our licensors are able to obtain patents, the patents may be substantially narrower than anticipated. 

 

The above mentioned patents and patent applications are exclusively licensed to us. To support our patent strategy, we have engaged in a review of patentability and certain freedom to operate issues, including performing certain searches. However, patentability and certain freedom to operate issues are inherently complex, and we cannot provide assurances that a relevant patent office and/or relevant court will agree with our conclusions regarding patentability issues or with our conclusions regarding freedom to operate issues, which can involve subtle issues of claim interpretation and/or claim liability. Furthermore, we may not be aware of all patents, published applications or published literature that may affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our product candidates, preventing the patentability of our product candidates to us or our licensors, or covering the same or similar technologies that may invalidate our patents, limit the scope of our future patent claims or adversely affect our ability to market our product candidates. 

 

In addition to patents, we also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how. Although we take measures to protect this information by entering into confidentiality and inventions agreements with our employees, scientific advisors, consultants, and collaborators, we cannot provide any assurances that these agreements will not be breached, that we will be able to protect ourselves from the harmful effects of disclosure if they are breached, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. If any of these events occurs, or we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, the value of our intellectual property may be greatly reduced.  

 

Ongoing and future intellectual property disputes could require us to spend time and money to address such disputes and could limit our intellectual property rights. 

 

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have been characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights, and companies have employed intellectual property litigation to gain a competitive advantage. We may initiate or become subject to infringement claims or litigation arising out of patents and pending applications of our competitors, or we may become subject to proceedings initiated by our competitors or other third parties or the PTO or applicable foreign bodies to reexamine the patentability of our licensed or owned patents. In addition, litigation may be necessary to enforce our issued patents, to protect our trade secrets and know-how, or to determine the enforceability, scope, and validity of the proprietary rights of others.

We initiated court proceedings in Germany for patent infringement and unfair use of our proprietary information related to Neutrolin (as described below). We also have had opposition proceedings brought against the European Patent and the German utility model patent which are the basis of our infringement proceedings (as described below). The defense and prosecution of these ongoing and any future intellectual property suits, PTO or foreign proceedings, and related legal and administrative proceedings are costly and time-consuming to pursue, and their outcome is uncertain. An adverse determination in litigation or PTO or foreign proceedings to which we may become a party could subject us to significant liabilities, including damages, require us to obtain licenses from third parties, restrict or prevent us from selling our products in certain markets, or invalidate or render unenforceable our licensed or owned patents. Although patent and intellectual property disputes might be settled through licensing or similar arrangements, the costs associated with such arrangements may be substantial and could include our paying large fixed payments and ongoing royalties. Furthermore, the necessary licenses may not be available on satisfactory terms or at all.

 

In February 2007, Geistlich Söhne AG für Chemische Industrie, Switzerland (“Geistlich”) brought an action against the European Sodemann Patent covering our Neutrolin product candidate, which is owned by ND Partners, LLC (“NDP”) and licensed to us pursuant to the License and Assignment Agreement between us and NDP. This action was brought at the Board of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) opposition division (the “Opposition Board”) based upon alleged lack of inventiveness in the use of citric acid and a pH value in the range of 4.5 to 6.5 with having the aim to provide an alternative lock solution through having improved anticoagulant characteristics compared to the lock solutions of the prior art. The Opposition Board rejected the opposition by Geistlich. In a letter dated September 30, 2013, we were notified that the opposition division of the EPO reopened the proceedings before the first instance and gave their preliminary non-binding opinion that the patent as amended during the appeal proceedings fulfills the requirements of clarity, novelty, and inventive step, and invited the parties to provide their comments and/or requests by February 10, 2014.  We filed our response on February 3, 2014 to request that the patent be maintained as amended during the appeal proceedings.  Geistlich did not file a further statement within the required timeline.  On November 5, 2014, the Opposition Division at the EPO issued the interlocutory decision to maintain the patent on the basis of the claims as amended during the appeal proceedings. This decision became final as no further appeal was lodged by Geistlich.

 

On September 9, 2014, we filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the “Defendants”) claiming infringement of our European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the EPO on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Prosl European Patent covers a low dose heparin catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in a hemodialysis catheter.  In this action, we claim that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent.  We believe that our patent is sound, and are seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step.  We cannot predict what other defenses the Defendants may raise, or the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters.

 

In the same complaint against the same Defendants, we also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of NDP’s utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”), which we believe is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims are now being tried separately.  TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”) based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent.

 

On March 27, 2015, the District Court held a hearing to evaluate whether the Utility Model has been infringed by TauroPharm in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of its TauroLock-HEP100TM and TauroLock-HEP500TM products. A hearing before the same court was held on January 30, 2015 on the separate, but related, question of infringement of the Prosl European Patent by TauroPharm.

 

The Court issued its decisions on May 8, 2015 staying both proceedings.  In its decisions, the Court found that the commercialization by TauroPharm in Germany of its TauroLock catheter lock solutions Hep100 and Hep500 infringes both the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model and further that there is no prior use right that would allow TauroPharm to continue to make, use or sell its product in Germany. However, the Court declined to issue an injunction in favor of us that would preclude the continued commercialization by TauroPharm based upon its finding that there is a sufficient likelihood that the EPO, in the case of the Prosl European Patent, or the German PTO, in the case of the Utility Model, may find that such patent or utility model is invalid. Specifically, the Court noted the possible publication of certain instructions for product use that may be deemed to constitute prior art. As such, the District Court determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by us for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO has ruled on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model.

The opposition proceeding against the Prosl European Patent before the EPO is ongoing. In its preliminary consideration of the matter, the EPO (and the German PTO) regarded the patent as not inventive or novel due to publication of prior art.  Oral proceedings before the Opposition Division at the EPO were held on November 25, 2015, at which the three judge patent examiner panel considered arguments related to the validity of the Prosl European Patent. The hearing was adjourned due to the fact that the panel was of the view that Claus Herdeis, one of the managing directors of TauroPharm, has to be heard as a witness in a further hearing in order to close some gaps in the documentation presented by TauroPharm as regards the publication of prior art. In October 2016, TauroPharm submitted a further writ to the EPO requesting a date for the hearing and bringing forward further arguments, in particular in view of the recent decision of the German PTO on the invalidity of the utility model. The EPO has scheduled a further oral hearing for November 22 / 23, 2017. While we continue to believe that the referenced publication and instructions for use do not, in fact, constitute prior art and that the Prosl European Patent will be found to be valid by the EPO, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in this matter.

 

The German PTO held a hearing in the validity proceedings relating to the Utility Model on June 29, 2016, at which the panel affirmed its preliminary finding that the Utility Model was invalid based upon prior publication of a reference to the benefits that may be associated with adding heparin to a taurolidine based solution. The decision is subject to appeal and has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. Furthermore, it has no bearing on the ongoing consideration of the validity and possible infringement of the Prosl Patent by the EPO. We filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016.

 

On January 16, 2015, we filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany.  In the complaint, we allege violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm for the unauthorized use of its proprietary information obtained in confidence by TauroPharm.  We allege that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLockTM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500.  We seek a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. An initial hearing in the District Court of Cologne, Germany was held on November 19, 2015 to consider our claims. The judge made no decision on the merits of our complaint.  On January 14, 2016, the court issued an interim decision in the form of a court order outlining several issues of concern that relate primarily to court's interest in clarifying the facts and reviewing any and all available documentation, in particular with regard to the question which specific know-how was provided to TauroPharm by whom and when. We have prepared the requested reply and produced the respective documentation. TauroPharm has also filed another writ within the same deadline and both parties have filed further writs at the end of April setting out their respective argumentation in more detail. A further oral hearing was held on November 15, 2016. The court made no rulings from the bench, and indicated that it is prepared to further examine the underlying facts of our allegations. At this time, there are no further hearings scheduled. We intend to continue to pursue this matter, and to provide additional supplemental documentary and other evidence as may be necessary to support our claims.

 

If we infringe the rights of third parties we could be prevented from selling products and forced to pay damages and defend against litigation.

 

 

 

 

Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties

 

If we are not able to develop and maintain collaborative marketing relationships with licensees or partners, or create an effective sales, marketing, and distribution capability, we may be unable to market our products or market them successfully.

 

 

If we are unable to establish and maintain such third-party sales and marketing relationships, or choose not to do so, we will have to establish our own in-house capabilities. We currently have no sales, marketing, or distribution infrastructure. To market any of our products directly, we would need to develop a marketing, sales, and distribution force that has both technical expertise and the ability to support a distribution capability. The establishment of a marketing, sales, and distribution capability would take time and significantly increase our costs, possibly requiring substantial additional capital. In addition, there is intense competition for proficient sales and marketing personnel, and we may not be able to attract individuals who have the qualifications necessary to market, sell, and distribute our products. There can be no assurance that we will be able to establish internal marketing, sales, or distribution capabilities. If we are unable to, or choose not to establish these capabilities, or if the capabilities we establish are not sufficient to meet our needs, we will be required to establish collaborative marketing, sales, or distribution relationships with third parties, which we might not be able to do on acceptable terms or at all.

   

We currently have no internal marketing and sales organization and currently rely and intend to continue to rely on third parties to market and sell Neutrolin. If we are unable to enter into or maintain agreements with third parties to market and sell Neutrolin or any other product after approval or are unable to establish our own marketing and sales capabilities, we may not be able to generate significant or any product revenues.

 

We do not have an internal sales organization. To date we have relied, and intend to continue to rely, on third parties for the marketing, sales and distribution of Neutrolin and any other product we might develop. However, we may not be able to maintain current and future arrangements or enter into new arrangements with third parties to sell Neutrolin or any other product on favorable terms or at all. In that event, we would have to develop our own marketing and sales force. The establishment and development of our own sales force would be expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch, and we cannot be certain that we would be able to successfully develop this capability. In addition, the use of third parties to commercialize our approved products reduces the revenues that we would receive if we commercialized these products ourselves.

 

We have entered into agreements with independent companies to market Neutrolin in Germany and in Saudi Arabia and, upon regulatory approval, South Korea. We also have an independent sales representative in the Middle East. We intend to seek a sales partner in the U.S. if Neutrolin receives FDA approval. Consequently, we will be dependent on these firms and individuals for the success of sales in these and any other countries in which approval is granted. If these firms or individuals do not perform for whatever reason, our business, prospects and results of operations will be materially adversely affected. Finding a new or replacement organization for sales and marketing could be difficult, which would further harm our business, prospects and results of operations.

 

If we or our collaborators are unable to manufacture our products in sufficient quantities or are unable to obtain regulatory approvals for a manufacturing facility, we may be unable to meet demand for our products and we may lose potential revenues.

 

 Completion of our clinical trials and commercialization of Neutrolin and any other product candidate require access to, or development of, facilities to manufacture a sufficient supply of our product candidates. All of our manufacturing processes currently are, and we expect them to continue to be, outsourced to third parties. Specifically, we will rely on one or more manufacturers to supply us and/or our distribution partners with commercial quantities of Neutrolin. If, for any reason, we become unable to rely on our current sources for the manufacture of Neutrolin or any other product candidates or for active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, either for clinical trials or for commercial quantities, then we would need to identify and contract with additional or replacement third-party manufacturers to manufacture compounds for pre-clinical, clinical, and commercial purposes. We may not be successful in identifying such additional or replacement third-party manufacturers, or in negotiating acceptable terms with any that we do identify. Such third-party manufacturers must receive FDA or applicable foreign approval before they can produce clinical material or commercial product, and any that are identified may not receive such approval or may fail to maintain such approval. In addition, we may be in competition with other companies for access to these manufacturers’ facilities and may be subject to delays in manufacturing if the manufacturers give other clients higher priority than they give to us. If we are unable to secure and maintain third-party manufacturing capacity, the development and sales of our products and our financial performance may be materially affected.

 

Before we could begin to commercially manufacture Neutrolin or any other product candidate on our own, we must obtain regulatory approval of the manufacturing facility and process. The manufacture of drugs for clinical and commercial purposes must comply with cGMP and applicable non-U.S. regulatory requirements. The cGMP requirements govern quality control and documentation policies and procedures. Complying with cGMP and non-U.S. regulatory requirements would require that we expend time, money, and effort in production, recordkeeping, and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. We would also have to pass a pre-approval inspection prior to FDA or non-U.S. regulatory agency approval. Failure to pass a pre-approval inspection may significantly delay regulatory approval of our products. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may be limited in the jurisdictions in which we are permitted to sell our products. As a result, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. 

 

 Corporate and academic collaborators may take actions that delay, prevent, or undermine the success of our products.

 

Our operating and financial strategy for the development, clinical testing, manufacture, and commercialization of our product candidates is heavily dependent on our entering into collaborations with corporations, academic institutions, licensors, licensees, and other parties. Our current strategy assumes that we will successfully establish and maintain these collaborations or similar relationships. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful establishing or maintaining such collaborations. Some of our existing collaborations, such as our licensing agreements, are, and future collaborations may be, terminable at the sole discretion of the collaborator in certain circumstances. Replacement collaborators might not be available on attractive terms, or at all.

 

 

Data provided by collaborators and others upon which we rely that has not been independently verified could turn out to be false, misleading, or incomplete.

 

 

Risks Related to our Common Stock

 

Prior to fiscal 2015, we had identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, and our current internal control over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent all possible errors that could occur.

 

In the several years prior to fiscal 2015, we had identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting that was related to our limited finance staff and the resulting ineffective management review over financial reporting, coupled with increasingly complex accounting treatments associated with our financing activities and European expansion. While we remediated this material weakness in 2015, we cannot be assured that material weaknesses will not arise again.

 

 

A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be satisfied. Internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures are designed to give a reasonable assurance that they are effective to achieve their objectives. We cannot provide absolute assurance that all of our possible future control issues will be detected. These inherent limitations include the possibility that judgments in our decision making can be faulty, and that isolated breakdowns can occur because of simple human error or mistake. The design of our system of controls is based in part upon assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed absolutely in achieving our stated goals under all potential future or unforeseeable conditions. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost effective control system, misstatements due to error could occur and not be detected. This and any future failures could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative impact on our financial condition and stock price.

 

Our common stock price has fluctuated considerably and is likely to remain volatile, in part due to the limited market for our common stock and you could lose all or a part of your investment.

 

 

        Additionally, the market price of our common stock may continue to fluctuate significantly in response to a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, including the following: 

 

 

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the stock of pharmaceutical and medical device companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

 

For these reasons and others, an investment in our securities is risky and invest only if you can withstand a significant loss and wide fluctuations in the value of your investment. 

A significant number of additional shares of our common stock may be issued at a later date, and their sale could depress the market price of our common stock.

 

As of December 31, 2016, we had outstanding the following securities that are convertible into or exercisable for shares of our common stock:

 

 

The possibility of the issuance of these shares, as well as the actual sale of such shares, could substantially reduce the market price for our common stock and impede our ability to obtain future financing. 

 

We will need additional financing to fund our activities in the future, which likely will dilute our stockholders.

 

 To date, our commercial operations have not generated sufficient revenues to enable profitability. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $119.2 million, and incurred net losses from operations of $24.6 million for the year then ended. Based on the current development plans for Neutrolin in both the U.S. and foreign markets (including the ongoing hemodialysis Phase 3 clinical trial in the U.S.) and our other operating requirements, management believes that the existing cash at December 31, 2016 will not be sufficient to fund operations for at least the next 12 months following the balance sheet date. Additionally, we will need additional funding to complete the hemodialysis clinical trial in the U.S. which commenced in December 2015 as well as to initiate the planned Phase 3 clinical trial in oncology patients with catheters. Further, we anticipate that we will incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, we will require substantial funds in the future to support our operations. We expect to seek equity or debt financings in the future to fund our operations. The issuance of additional equity securities, or convertible debt or other derivative securities, likely will dilute some if not all of our then existing stockholders, depending on the financing terms. 

 

 

Future sales and issuances of our equity securities or rights to purchase our equity securities, including pursuant to equity incentive plans, would result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

 

 

Pursuant to our 2013 Stock Plan, our Board of Directors is authorized to award up to a total of 11,000,000 shares of common stock or options to purchase shares of common stock to our officers, directors, employees and non-employee consultants. As of December 31, 2016, options to purchase 130,000 shares of common stock issued under our 2006 Stock Plan at a weighted average exercise price of $1.38 per share, and options to purchase 4,479,755 shares of common stock issued under our 2013 Stock Plan at a weighted average exercise price of $2.31 per share were outstanding. In addition, at December 31, 2016, there were outstanding warrants to purchase an aggregate of 4,006,468 shares of our common stock at prices ranging from $0.40 to $7.00, and shares of our outstanding Series C-2, C-3, D and E preferred stock convertible into an aggregate of 6,303,999 shares of our common stock. Stockholders will experience dilution in the event that additional shares of common stock are issued under our 2006 Stock Plan or 2013 Stock Plan, or options issued under our 2006 Stock Plan or 2013 Stock Plan are exercised, or any warrants are exercised for, or preferred stock shares are converted to, common stock.

 

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult.

 

 

 

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the DGCL, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with an interested stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder, unless such transactions are approved by the board of directors. This provision could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing someone from acquiring us or merging with us, whether or not it is desired by, or beneficial to, our stockholders. Any provision of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, or Amended and Restated Bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock. 

 

If we fail to comply with the continued listing standards of the NYSE MKT, it may result in a delisting of our common stock from the exchange. 

 

Our common stock is currently listed for trading on the NYSE MKT, and the continued listing of our common stock on the NYSE MKT is subject to our compliance with a number of listing standards. These listing standards include the requirement for avoiding sustained losses and maintaining a minimum level of stockholders’ equity.  In 2012 and 2014, we received notices from the NYSE MKT that we did not meet continued listing standards of the NYSE MKT as set forth in Part 10 of the Company Guide.  Specifically, we were not in compliance with Section 1003(a)(i) and Section 1003(a)(ii) of the Company Guide because we reported stockholders’ equity of less than the required amounts.  As a result, we became subject to the procedures and requirements of Section 1009 of the Company Guide and were subject to possible delisting. In March 2015, we regained compliance with the NYSE MKT listing requirements due to our market capitalization, pursuant to Section 1003(a) of the Company Guide. However, there can be no assurance that we will continue to meet the continued listing standards of the NYSE MKT.

If our common stock were no longer listed on the NYSE MKT, investors might only be able to trade on the OTC Bulletin Board ® or in the Pink Sheets ® (a quotation medium operated by Pink Sheets LLC). This would impair the liquidity of our common stock not only in the number of shares that could be bought and sold at a given price, which might be depressed by the relative illiquidity, but also through delays in the timing of transactions and reduction in media coverage.

 

Because the average daily trading volume of our common stock has been low historically, the ability to sell our shares in the secondary trading market may be limited.

 

 

Penny stock regulations may impose certain restrictions on marketability of our securities.  

 

The SEC has adopted regulations which generally define a “penny stock” to be any equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share or an exercise price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. A security listed on a national securities exchange is exempt from the definition of a penny stock. Our common stock is listed on the NYSE MKT and so is not considered a penny stock. However, if we fail to maintain our common stock’s listing on the NYSE MKT, our common stock would be considered a penny stock. In that event, our common stock would be subject to rules that impose additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who sell such securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors (generally those with assets in excess of $1,000,000 or annual income exceeding $200,000, or $300,000 together with their spouse). For transactions covered by such rules, the broker-dealer must make a special suitability determination for the purchase of such securities and have received the purchaser’s written consent to the transaction prior to the purchase. Additionally, for any transaction involving a penny stock, unless exempt, the rules require the delivery, prior to the transaction, of a risk disclosure document mandated by the SEC relating to the penny stock market. The broker-dealer must also disclose the commission payable to both the broker-dealer and the registered representative, current quotations for the securities and, if the broker-dealer is the sole market maker, the broker-dealer must disclose this fact and the broker-dealer’s presumed control over the market. Finally, monthly statements must be sent disclosing recent price information for the penny stock held in the account and information on the limited market in penny stocks. Broker-dealers must wait two business days after providing buyers with disclosure materials regarding a security before effecting a transaction in such security. Consequently, the “penny stock” rules restrict the ability of broker-dealers to sell our securities and affect the ability of investors to sell our securities in the secondary market and the price at which such purchasers can sell any such securities, thereby affecting the liquidity of the market for our common stock.

 

Stockholders should be aware that, according to the SEC, the market for penny stocks has suffered in recent years from patterns of fraud and abuse. Such patterns include: 

 

 

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns on our common stock will be limited to the value of our common stock.

 

We have never declared dividends on our common stock, and currently do not plan to declare dividends on shares of our common stock in the foreseeable future. Pursuant to the terms of our Series D and E Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, we may not declare or pay any dividends or make any distributions on any of our shares or other equity securities as long as any of those preferred shares remain outstanding. We currently expect to retain future earnings, if any, for use in the operation and expansion of our business. The payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon such factors as earnings levels, capital requirements, our overall financial condition and any other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. Any return to holders of our common stock will be limited to the value of their common stock.

None.

Our principal executive offices are located in approximately 4,700 square feet of office space in Bedminster, New Jersey. We sublease this office space pursuant to a sublease agreement dated December 2014 which runs from April 1, 2015 until March 31, 2018. Rent is $5,000 per month plus occupancy costs such as utilities, maintenance and taxes. The total lease obligation is approximately $180,000. Our remaining sublease obligation is approximately $75,000 as of December 31, 2016.

 

Our subsidiary leases its offices in Fulda, Germany for a term of 36 months which commenced on September 1, 2013 for a base monthly payment of €498. The total 36 month lease obligation was approximately €17,900. The 36 month lease has terminated. A new three-month lease agreement commenced on November 1, 2016 which is renewable every three months for a base monthly payment of €461.

 

We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current needs, and that suitable additional alternative spaces will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

 

 

In February 2007, Geistlich Söhne AG für Chemische Industrie, Switzerland (“Geistlich”) brought an action against the European Sodemann Patent covering our Neutrolin product candidate, which is owned by ND Partners, LLC (“NDP”) and licensed to us pursuant to the License and Assignment Agreement between us and NDP. This action was brought at the Board of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) opposition division (the “Opposition Board”) based upon alleged lack of inventiveness in the use of citric acid and a pH value in the range of 4.5 to 6.5 with having the aim to provide an alternative lock solution through having improved anticoagulant characteristics compared to the lock solutions of the prior art. The Opposition Board rejected the opposition by Geistlich. In a letter dated September 30, 2013, we were notified that the opposition division of the EPO reopened the proceedings before the first instance and gave their preliminary non-binding opinion that the patent as amended during the appeal proceedings fulfills the requirements of clarity, novelty, and inventive step, and invited the parties to provide their comments and/or requests by February 10, 2014. We filed our response on February 3, 2014 to request that the patent be maintained as amended during the appeal proceedings. Geistlich did not file a further statement within the required timeline. On November 5, 2014, the Opposition Division at the EPO issued the interlocutory decision to maintain the patent on the basis of the claims as amended during the appeal proceedings. This decision became final as no further appeal was lodged by Geistlich.

 

On September 9, 2014, we filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the “Defendants”) claiming infringement of our European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the EPO on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Prosl European Patent covers a low dose heparin catheter lock solution for maintaining patency and preventing infection in a hemodialysis catheter. In this action, we claim that the Defendants infringe on the Prosl European Patent by manufacturing and distributing catheter locking solutions to the extent they are covered by the claims of the Prosl European Patent. We believe that our patent is sound, and are seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. We cannot predict what other defenses the Defendants may raise, or the ultimate outcome of either of these related matters.

 

In the same complaint against the same Defendants, we also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of NDP’s utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”), which we believe is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims are now being tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”) based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent.

On March 27, 2015, the District Court held a hearing to evaluate whether the Utility Model has been infringed by TauroPharm in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of its TauroLock-HEP100TM and TauroLock-HEP500TM products. A hearing before the same court was held on January 30, 2015 on the separate, but related, question of infringement of the Prosl European Patent by TauroPharm.

 

The Court issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings. In its decisions, the Court found that the commercialization by TauroPharm in Germany of its TauroLock catheter lock solutions Hep100 and Hep500 infringes both the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model and further that there is no prior use right that would allow TauroPharm to continue to make, use or sell its product in Germany. However, the Court declined to issue an injunction in favor of us that would preclude the continued commercialization by TauroPharm based upon its finding that there is a sufficient likelihood that the EPO, in the case of the Prosl European Patent, or the German PTO, in the case of the Utility Model, may find that such patent or utility model is invalid. Specifically, the Court noted the possible publication of certain instructions for product use that may be deemed to constitute prior art. As such, the District Court determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by us for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model.

 

The opposition proceeding against the Prosl European Patent before the EPO is ongoing. In its preliminary consideration of the matter, the EPO (and the German PTO) regarded the patent as not inventive or novel due to publication of prior art. Oral proceedings before the Opposition Division at the EPO were held on November 25, 2015, at which the three judge patent examiner panel considered arguments related to the validity of the Prosl European Patent. The hearing was adjourned due to the fact that the panel was of the view that Claus Herdeis, one of the managing directors of TauroPharm, has to be heard as a witness in a further hearing in order to close some gaps in the documentation presented by TauroPharm as regards the publication of prior art. In October 2016, TauroPharm submitted a further writ to the EPO requesting a date for the hearing and bringing forward further arguments, in particular in view of the recent decision of the German PTO on the invalidity of the utility model. The EPO has scheduled a further oral hearing for November 22 / 23, 2017. While we continue to believe that the referenced publication and instructions for use do not, in fact, constitute prior art and that the Prosl European Patent will be found to be valid by the EPO, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in this matter.

 

The German PTO held a hearing in the validity proceedings relating to the Utility Model on June 29, 2016, at which the panel affirmed its preliminary finding that the Utility Model was invalid based upon prior publication of a reference to the benefits that may be associated with adding heparin to a taurolidine based solution. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. Furthermore, it has no bearing on the ongoing consideration of the validity and possible infringement of the Prosl European Patent by the EPO. We filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016.

 

On January 16, 2015, we filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, we allege violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm for the unauthorized use of its proprietary information obtained in confidence by TauroPharm. We allege that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLockTM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. We seek a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. An initial hearing in the District Court of Cologne, Germany was held on November 19, 2015 to consider our claims. The judge made no decision on the merits of our complaint. On January 14, 2016, the court issued an interim decision in the form of a court order outlining several issues of concern that relate primarily to court's interest in clarifying the facts and reviewing any and all available documentation, in particular with regard to the question which specific know-how was provided to TauroPharm by whom and when. We have prepared the requested reply and produced the respective documentation. TauroPharm has also filed another writ within the same deadline and both parties have filed further writs at the end of April setting out their respective argumentation in more detail. A further oral hearing in this matter was held on November 15, 2016. In this hearing, the court heard arguments from CorMedix and TauroPharm concerning the allegations of unfair competition. The court made no rulings from the bench, and indicated that it is prepared to further examine the underlying facts of our allegations. At this time, there are no further hearings scheduled. The Company intends to continue to pursue this matter, and to provide additional supplemental documentary and other evidence as may be necessary to support its claims.

 

On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264 (the “Securities Class Action”). On September 4, 2015, two individuals, Shahm Martini and Paul Chretien (the “Martini Group”), filed a Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On that same date, another individual, Elaine Wood, filed a competing Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On September 18, 2015, the Martini Group withdrew its motion. Thereafter, on September 22, 2015, the Court appointed Elaine Wood as Lead Plaintiff and, on October 2, 2015, appointed the Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel.

 

On December 1, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims that the Company and Steven Lefkowitz, Randy Milby and Harry O’Grady (the “Cormedix Defendants”) violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint also named as defendants several unrelated entities that allegedly were paid stock promoters. Lead Plaintiff alleged generally that the Cormedix Defendants made materially false or misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the competitive landscape for the Company’s Neutrolin product and the alleged use of stock promoters. The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs.

On February 1, 2016, the Cormedix Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint on the grounds, among others, that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege: (1) material misstatements or omissions; (2) scienter by any of the Cormedix Defendants; or (3) loss causation. The Court heard oral argument on this motion on July 18, 2016 and in an order dated October 27, 2016, the Court granted the Cormedix Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice the Amended Complaint (the “Dismissal Order”). On December 16, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court in which the plaintiffs and their counsel agreed not to appeal, move for reconsideration or otherwise challenge the Dismissal Order. No settlement payment was made in exchange for the stipulation.

On May 13, 2016, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the Company and certain present and former directors and officers captioned Raval v. Milby, et. al., Docket No. C-12034-6 (the “Derivative Action”). The factual allegations of the Derivative Action substantially overlap the factual allegations contained in the Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action. The plaintiff purports to assert claims against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. The complaint in the Derivative Action seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs, and certain amendments to the Company’s “corporate governance and internal procedures”. On June 30, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order, among other things, staying the Derivative Action until 30 days after either: (a) the entry of any order denying any motion to dismiss the Derivative Action in the Securities Class Action, or (b) the entry of a final order dismissing the Securities Class Action with prejudice. Following entry of the Dismissal Order in the Securities Class Action, the parties entered into a stipulation, among other things, staying the Derivative Action until 30 days after either (a) November 30, 2016, in the event plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action did not file an appeal of the Dismissal Order or (b) the final disposition of any appeal in the event the plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action filed a Notice of Appeal of the Dismissal Order. On January 6, 2017, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice of the Derivative Action.

 

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

Market for Common Equity

Our common stock trades on the NYSE MKT under the symbol “CRMD.” The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated as reported by NYSE MKT:

 

	2016				2015
	High		Low		High		Low
First Quarter	$ 2.88		$1.15		$ 9.90		$1.63
Second Quarter	$ 4.54		$1.72		$10.40		$3.20
Third Quarter	$ 3.12		$1.35		$ 4.31		$1.72
Fourth Quarter	$ 3.26		$1.46		$ 2.96		$1.72

 

Based upon information furnished by our transfer agent, at March 14, 2017, we had approximately 63 holders of record of our common stock.

 

 

Stock Performance Graph

 

The following performance graph shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or “filed” or incorporated by reference in future filings with the SEC, or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing. The performance graph compares the performance of our common stock to the NASDAQ Composite Index and the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index. The graph covers the most recent five-year period ended December 31, 2016. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in our common stock and each index was $100.00 at December 31, 2011, and that all dividends are reinvested.

 

	Cumulative Total Return
	12/2011	12/2012	12/2013	12/2014	12/2015	12/2016
CorMedix, Inc.	$100	$255.03	$439.09	$676.35	$718.84	$541.78
NASDAQ Composite	$100	$116.41	$165.47	$188.69	$200.32	$216.54
NASDAQ Biotechnology	$100	$134.68	$232.37	$307.67	$328.76	$262.08

 

Dividend Policy

 

We have never declared dividends on our equity securities, and currently do not plan to declare dividends on shares of our common stock in the foreseeable future. We expect to retain our future earnings, if any, for use in the operation and expansion of our business. Further, pursuant to the terms of our Series D and Series E Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, we may not declare or pay any dividends or make any distributions on any of our shares or other equity securities as long as any of those preferred shares remain outstanding. Subject to the foregoing, the payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon such factors as earnings levels, capital requirements, our overall financial condition and any other factors deemed relevant by our Board of Directors.

 

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2016 about our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants and rights under all of our existing equity compensation plans (including individual arrangements):

 

Plan Category	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights (a)	Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights (b)	Number ofsecurities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a) (c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders (1)	4,609,755	$2.29	5,682,790
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders (2)	125,795	1.49	--
Total	4,735,550	$1.81	5,682,790

 

 (2) Consists of 795 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to a warrant issued to the placement agent of our convertible note financing in 2012 (with an exercise price of $0.40 per share) and 125,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to a warrant issued to ND Partners in April 2013 as consideration for the amendment of the ND Partners License Agreement.

 

The consolidated statement of income data set forth below with respect to the years ended December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014, and the consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 are derived from the audited consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report and should be read in conjunction with those financial statements and notes thereto. The consolidated statement of income data for the years ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and the consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 are derived from audited consolidated financial statements not included herein.

(amounts in thousands, except for per share amounts)	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Net sales	$224	$210	$189	$2	$-
Gross (loss)	(143)	(109)	(257)	(200)	-
(Loss) from operations	(24,761)	(16,654)	(8,903)	(4,915)	(3,000)
(Loss) before income taxes	(24,644)	(18,187)	(20,453)	(9,133)	(3,381)
Net (loss)	(24,644)	(18,187)	(20,453)	(9,133)	(3,381)
Comprehensive income (loss)	19	(37)	108	(9)	-
Comprehensive (loss)	(24,625)	(18,224)	(20,345)	(9,142)	(3,381)
(LOSS) PER SHARE
Basic and diluted	$(0.65)	(0.58)	(0.96)	(0.69)	$(0.30)
BALANCE SHEET DATA
Total cash and marketable securities	$20,165	$35,386	$4,340	$2,374	$835
Total assets	21,906	37,102	5,098	2,968	1,153
Total liabilities	4,092	3,090	1,463	6,990	1,489
Total stockholders’ equity (deficiency)	17,815	34,011	3,634	(4,022)	(335)

 

You should read the following discussion and analysis together with our audited financial statements and the accompanying notes. This discussion contains forward-looking statements, within the meaning of Section 27A of Securities Act, Section 21E of the Exchange Act, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding our expected financial condition, business and financing plans. These statements involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and elsewhere in this report, particularly under the heading “Risk Factors.”

Overview

 

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases.

 

Our primary focus is on the development of our lead product candidate, Neutrolin, for potential commercialization in the U.S. and other key markets. We have in-licensed the worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Neutrolin®. Neutrolin is a novel anti-infective solution (a formulation of taurolidine, citrate and heparin 1000 u/ml) for the reduction and prevention of catheter-related infections and thrombosis in patients requiring central venous catheters in clinical settings such as dialysis, critical/intensive care, and oncology. Infection and thrombosis represent key complications among critical care / intensive care and cancer patients with central venous catheters. These complications can lead to treatment delays and increased costs to the healthcare system when they occur due to hospitalizations, need for IV antibiotic treatment, long-term anticoagulation therapy, removal/replacement of the central venous catheter, related treatment costs and increased mortality. We believe Neutrolin addresses a significant unmet medical need and a potential large market opportunity.

 

We plan to conduct two pivotal trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of Neutrolin to secure marketing approval in the U.S. We initiated one Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis patients with a central venous catheter in December 2015 and plan to initiate one Phase 3 trial in oncology patients with catheters, subject to funding requirements.

 

In July 2013, we received CE Mark approval for Neutrolin. As a result, in December 2013, we commercially launched Neutrolin in Germany for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections (“CRBSI”), and maintenance of catheter patency in hemodialysis patients using a tunneled, cuffed central venous catheter for vascular access.  To date, Neutrolin is registered and may be sold in certain European Union and Middle Eastern countries for such treatment.

 

Since our inception, we have not generated sufficient revenue from product sales to be profitable.  Our operations to date have been primarily limited to licensing product candidates, developing clinical trials for our product candidates, establishing manufacturing for our product candidates, performing business and financial planning, performing research and development, seeking regulatory approval for our products, initial commercialization activities for Neutrolin, and maintaining and improving our patent portfolio.  We have funded our operations primarily through debt and equity financings.  We have generated significant losses to date, and we expect to incur increases in our cash use in operations as we continue to commercialize Neutrolin in Europe and other markets, prepare for and undertake our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials, pursue business development activities, incur additional legal costs to defend our intellectual property, and seek FDA approval of Neutrolin in the U.S.  As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $119.2 million.  We are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all.

 

Financial Operations Overview

 

Revenue

 

We have not generated substantial revenue since our inception. Through December 31, 2016, we have funded our operations primarily through debt and equity financings and our initial public offering, and to a lesser extent, the receipt from Federal grants under the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project program and the sale of our unused net operating losses through the State of New Jersey’s Economic Development Authority Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program.

 

Research and Development Expense

 

Research and development, or R&D, expense consists of: (i) internal costs associated with our development activities; (ii) payments we make to third-party contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, investigative sites, and consultants; (iii) technology and intellectual property license costs; (iv) manufacturing development costs; (v) personnel related expenses, including salaries, stock-based compensation, benefits, travel and related costs for the personnel involved in drug development; (vi) activities relating to regulatory filings and the advancement of our product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials; and (vii) facilities and other allocated expenses, which include direct and allocated expenses for rent, facility maintenance, as well as laboratory and other supplies. All R&D is expensed as incurred.

 

Conducting a significant amount of development is central to our business model. Product candidates in later-stage clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of development, primarily due to the significantly increased size and duration of the clinical trials. We plan to increase our R&D expenses for the foreseeable future in order to complete development of Neutrolin in the U.S., especially for the ongoing Phase 3 trial in hemodialysis patients and the planned Phase 3 trial in oncology.

 

The following table summarizes the percentages of our R&D payments related to our sole product candidate Neutrolin and our former product candidate CRMD0004 (we ceased development of and returned the rights to CRMD004 in late 2015). The percentages summarized in the following table reflect payments directly attributable to each development candidate, which are tracked on a project basis. A portion of our internal costs, including indirect costs relating to our product candidates, are not tracked on a project basis and are allocated based on management’s estimate.

 

	Year EndedDecember 31,
	2016	2015	2014
CRMD003	100%	98%	98%
CRMD004	-	2%	2%

 

The process of conducting pre-clinical studies and clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time consuming. The probability of success for each product candidate and clinical trial may be affected by a variety of factors, including, among others, the quality of the product candidate’s early clinical data, investment in the program, competition, manufacturing capabilities and commercial viability. As a result of the uncertainties associated with clinical trial enrollments and the risks inherent in the development process, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of current or future clinical stages of our product candidates or when, or to what extent, we will generate revenues from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates.

 

Development timelines, probability of success and development costs vary widely. Our current focus is on clinical development efforts in the U.S. and optimization of sales in markets where Neutrolin is approved. We are seeking to develop Neutrolin in the U.S. Based on our discussions with the FDA, we are conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis catheters and, subject to finalization of the protocol, plan to conduct one Phase 3 clinical trial in oncology. We plan to initiate the Phase 3 trial in oncology depending on our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to complete the hemodialysis catheters trial within our expected budget. We expect that the ongoing Phase 3 trial for hemodialysis catheters will cost approximately $26 million to $30 million and will take 30 months to complete after initiation. We are still finalizing the details of the protocol for the planned second Phase 3 trial for oncology/total parenteral nutrition and are unable to provide a cost estimate at this time. We are seeking one or more strategic partners or other sources of capital to help complete the development of Neutrolin in the U.S.

 

On July 5, 2013, we received CE Mark approval for Neutrolin. As a result, in late 2013, we commercially launched Neutrolin in Germany for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections, or CRBI, and maintenance of catheter patency in hemodialysis patients using a tunneled, cuffed central venous catheter for vascular access. To date, Neutrolin is registered and may be sold in certain European Union and Middle East countries for such treatment.

 

Selling, General and Administrative Expense

 

Selling, general and administrative, or SG&A, expense includes costs related to commercial personnel, medical education professionals, marketing and advertising, salaries and other related costs, including stock-based compensation expense, for persons serving in our executive, sales, finance and accounting functions. Other SG&A expense includes facility-related costs not included in R&D expense, promotional expenses, costs associated with industry and trade shows, and professional fees for legal services and accounting services.

 

Loss on Issuance of Preferred Stock, Convertible Notes and Warrants

 

We issued preferred stock and related warrants during the year ended December 31, 2014. The loss on the issuance of preferred stock and related warrants represents the difference on the issuance date between the combined derivative related fair value of the conversion option and the warrants, and the proceeds that were received net of all fees and expenses related to the issuance.

 

Change in Fair Value of Derivative Liabilities

 

As previously disclosed in our December 31, 2014 Form 10-K, we entered into consent and exchange agreements with investors holding our outstanding Series C-2, Series C-3, Series D, and Series E non-voting convertible preferred stock. We modified certain terms within the preferred stock which resulted in the reclassification of the remaining derivative liability to equity in September 2014.

 

The change in the fair value of derivative liabilities represents the change in the fair value of the Series C, D and E preferred stock conversion options and the change in the fair value of warrants that were recorded at fair value on a recurring basis under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). This includes any changes in fair value resulting from the re-measurement of the derivative liabilities in connection with the redemption or conversion of the preferred stock and the exercise of warrants.

 

Loss on Modification of Equity Instruments and Extinguishment of Derivative Liabilities

As discussed in Note 7 to the financial statements included in this Report, the loss on modification of equity instruments and extinguishment of derivative liabilities represents the change in the fair value of the preferred stock hybrid instruments and liability classified warrants resulting from the modifications made to those instruments during the year ended December 31, 2014.

Foreign Currency Exchange Transaction Gain (Loss)

 

Foreign currency exchange transaction gain (loss) is the result of re-measuring transactions denominated in a currency other than our functional currency and is reported in the consolidated statement of operations as a separate line item within other income (expense). In 2014, foreign currency exchange transaction gain (loss) consists of foreign exchange transaction gains and losses on intercompany loans that are in place between our company, which is based in New Jersey, and our German subsidiary. Effective October 1, 2014, we determined that the intercompany loans outstanding are not expected to be repaid in the foreseeable future and the nature of the funding advanced is of a long-term investment nature. As such, beginning October 1, 2014, unrealized foreign exchange movements related to long-term intercompany loans are recorded in other comprehensive income (loss).

 

Interest Income

 

Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments.

 

Interest Expense

 

Interest expense consists of interest incurred on financing of expenditures.

 

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014

 

The following is a tabular presentation of our consolidated operating results (in thousands):

 

	For the Year Ended December 31,			% of Change Increase (Decrease)
	2016	2015	2014	2016 versus 2015	2015 versus 2014
Revenue	$224	$210	$189	7%	11%
Cost of sales	(367)	(319)	(446)	15%	(29)%
Gross profit (loss)	(143)	(109)	(257)	31%	(58)%
Operating Expenses:
Research and development	(15,735)	(6,282)	(1,319)	150%	376%
Selling, general and administrative	(8,883)	(10,263)	(7,327)	(13)%	40%
Total operating expenses	(24,618)	(16,545)	(8,646)	49%	91%
Loss from operations	(24,761)	(16,654)	(8,903)	49%	87%
Interest income	127	61	3	108%	1933%
Foreign exchange transaction loss	(8)	(7)	(151)	14%	(96)%
Value of warrants issued in connection with backstop financing	-	(1,583)	-	(100%)	(100)%
Loss on issuance of preferred stock, convertible notes and warrants	-	-	(89)	-	(100)%
Change in fair value of derivative liabilities	-	-	(8,849)	-	(100)%
Loss on modification of equity instruments and extinguishment of derivative liabilities	-	-	(2,462)	-	(100)%
Interest expense	(1)	(4)	(2)	(75)%	90%
Net loss	(24,643)	(18,187)	(20,453)	35%	(12)%
Other comprehensive income gain (loss)	19	(37)	108	(152)%	(134)%
Comprehensive loss	$(24,624)	$(18,224)	$(20,345)	35%	(11)%

 

Revenue. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $224,000 as compared to $210,000 for the same period in 2015, an increase of $14,000. The increase was due to the recognition of deferred revenue of $106,000 for the products sold with warranty, substantially offset by a decrease in sales of Neutrolin in Germany and the Middle East of $92,000.

 

Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $210,000 as compared to $189,000 for the same period in 2014, an increase of $21,000. The majority of the revenue is from sales of Neutrolin in Germany and Middle East markets. In addition, we realized $8,000 associated with the amortization of deferred revenue from a non-refundable payment received from a distribution agreement in 2015 as compared to $4,000 in 2014.

 

Cost of Sales. Cost of sales for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $367,000 as compared to $319,000 for the same period in 2015, an increase of $48,000. The increase was primarily due to the $63,000 recognition of cost of sales associated with deferred revenue, an increase in write-off of expired raw materials of $58,000, and an increase of inventory reserve of $5,000, offset by decreases in ongoing stability studies of $35,000 and decreased cost of materials of $43,000 due to lower sales in 2016 excluding deferred revenue.

 

Cost of sales for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $319,000 as compared to $446,000 for the same period in 2014, a decrease of $127,000. The decrease was primarily due to decreases in ongoing stability studies and services performed in the management of manufacturing of $131,000 and other manufacturing expenses mainly due to costs in transitioning Neutrolin to new labels and packaging of $13,000, offset by an increase in direct cost of materials of $67,000 due to the use of new commercial batches as compared to the use of old previously expensed research and development batches in 2014. In addition, we recorded a charge of $125,000 associated with pre-launch inventory build-up and start-up related manufacturing inefficiencies in 2015 as compared to $175,000 in 2014, a decrease of $50,000.

 

 

Research and Development Expense. R&D expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $15,735,000, an increase of $9,453,000 from $6,282,000 for the same period in 2015. The increase was primarily attributable to $5,317,000 of expenses related to the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis catheters in the U.S.; cost of new studies related to antimicrobial sutures, nanofiber webs, wound management and osteoarthritis and visco-supplementation of $2,438,000; costs to support the U.S. clinical trial drug supply consisting of manufacturing process development activities of $1,928,000; personnel cost of $627,000, mainly due to hiring employees and consulting fees of $290,000. These increases were partially offset by decreases in pharmacoeconomics and pricing and market research studies conducted in 2015 of $401,000 and decreased non-cash stock based compensation of $758,000.

 

R&D expense for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $6,282,000, an increase of $4,963,000 from $1,319,000 for the same period in 2014. The increase was primarily attributable to $1,020,000 for the initiation of the Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis catheters in the U.S.; higher costs to support the U.S. clinical trial drug supply consisting of manufacturing process development activities of $1,718,000 and pharmacoeconomics, and pricing and market research studies of $203,000. Additionally, increases in non-cash stock based compensation of $871,000, consulting fees pertaining mainly to the clinical supply manufacturing development process and regulatory activities of $996,000, and personnel costs of $120,000 were recognized.

 

Selling, General and Administrative Expense. SG&A expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $8,883,000, a decrease of $1,380,000 from $10,263,000 for the same period in 2015. The decrease was primarily attributable to a $1,133,000 decrease in non-cash stock-based compensation expense, mainly due to the modification of our former CEO’s stock options recorded in 2015; a decrease in selling expenses in the EU of $666,000, mainly due to reduction in sales force and a decrease in expenses related to business development activities of $430,000. These decreases, among others of lesser significance, were partially offset by increased consulting fees of $587,000, primarily due to interim CFO and executive search fees; increased legal fees of $159,000; increased personnel expenses of $56,000 and increased investor relations activities of $50,000.

 

SG&A expense for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $10,263,000, an increase of $2,936,000 from $7,327,000 for the same period in 2014. The increase was attributable to increases in personnel expenses of $650,000 due to employee benefits and the Release of Claims and Severance Modification with our CEO; legal fees due mainly to ongoing intellectual property and securities litigation, increased SEC and clinical activities of $784,000; expenses related to business development activities of $292,000 and marketing research studies of $248,000; consulting fees of $554,000 primarily due to an executive search fee, increased investor relations activities of $193,000; and a non-cash charge of $187,000 for stock-based compensation expense due to the modification of the stock options of our CEO and $113,000 for modification of warrants. These increases, among others of lesser significance, were partially offset by a decrease in selling costs related to commercialization of Neutrolin in the EU of $268,000.

 

Loss on Issuance of Preferred Stock, Convertible Notes and Warrants. The loss on the issuance of preferred stock and warrants of $90,000 for the year ended December 31, 2014 represents the difference on the issuance date between the combined fair value of the conversion option and the warrants of $2,054,000, and the combined proceeds received and liabilities settled, net of all issuance-related fees and expenses of $1,965,000. Due to the elimination of the downround protection of these derivative liabilities through an agreement modification in September 2014, which resulted in the reclassification of derivative liabilities to equity, there was no charge to earnings during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.

 

Change in Fair Value of Derivative Liabilities. The change in the value of derivative liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2014 of $8,849,000 consists of increases in the fair value of preferred stock conversion options and warrants between December 31, 2013 and September 15, 2014 of $7,138,000 and $1,711,000, respectively. Due to the modification of certain terms within the preferred stock which resulted in the reclassification of the remaining derivative liability to equity in September 2014, there was no charge to earnings during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.

 

Loss on Modification of Equity Instruments and Extinguishment of Derivative Liabilities. The loss on extinguishment of derivative liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2014 of $2,463,000 represents the change in the fair value of the preferred stock hybrid instruments of $2,119,000 and liability classified warrants of $344,000 resulting from the modifications made to those instruments on September 15, 2014 for the purpose of changing the balance sheet classification from liability to equity.

Foreign Exchange Transaction Gain (Loss). Foreign exchange transaction losses for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 of $8,000 and $7,000, respectively, were due to the foreign exchange rate fluctuations for the payment of invoices paid in foreign currency. Foreign exchange transaction loss for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $151,000 due to additional funding to our German subsidiary through September 30, 2014 and the corresponding fluctuation in the exchange rates. Effective October 1, 2014, we considered the intercompany loans to be of long-term investment nature. Foreign exchange gains or losses subsequent to October 1, 2014 have been recorded in other comprehensive income.

 

Interest Income. Interest income for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $126,800, an increase of $66,400 from $60,400 for the same period in 2015. The increase was attributable to recording higher interest income on short-term investments during 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015.

 

Interest income for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $60,400, an increase of $57,700 from $2,700 for the same period in 2014. The increase was attributable to higher average interest-bearing cash balances during the year ended December 31, 2015 as compared to the same period in 2014.

 

Interest Expense. Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $1,300 as compared to $4,000 for the same period in 2015, a decrease of $2,700.

 

Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $4,000 as compared to $2,000 for the same period in 2014, an increase of $2,000.

 

Other Comprehensive Income (Loss). Unrealized foreign exchange movements related to long-term intercompany loans and the translation of the foreign affiliate financial statements to U.S. dollars and unrealized movements related to short-term investment are recorded in other comprehensive income resulting in a $19,000 gain in 2016, $37,000 loss in 2015 and $108,000 gain in 2014.

 

Liquidity and Capital Resources

 

Sources of Liquidity

 

As a result of our cost of sales, R&D and SG&A expenditures and the lack of substantial product sales revenue, we have not been profitable and have generated operating losses since we were incorporated in July 2006. We received the following proceeds from the issuance of our common stock during the years ended:

 

	December 31,
	2016			2015
	Shares Issued	Net Proceeds	Wtd. Ave. Price	Shares Issued	Net Proceeds	Wtd. Ave. Price
At-the-market program	3,360,037	$6,229,351	$1.92	5,310,037	$28,451,848	$5.55
Exercise of stock options	1,087,500	863,101	$0.79	499,955	492,960	$0.99
Exercise of warrants	-	-	$-	4,581,783	14,658,161	$3.20
Totals	4,447,537	$7,092,452		10,391,775	$43,602,969

 

During the year ended December 31, 2014, we sold the following:

 

 

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

 

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $22,265,000 as compared to $12,527,000 in 2015, an increase in net cash use of $9,738,000. The increase was primarily attributable to an increase in net loss of $6,456,000 driven by increased research and development expenses. The net loss of $24,644,000 for the year ended December 31, 2016 was higher than cash used in operating activities by $2,379,000. The difference is primarily attributable to non-cash stock-based compensation of $1,335,000, increase in accrued expenses of $1,122,000 and decreases in trade receivables and inventory of $308,000 and $80,000, respectively, offset by an increase in prepaid expenses of $505,000 due to expenses associated with the Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis catheters in the U.S and decrease in accounts payable of $64,000.

 

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $12,527,000 as compared to $6,321,000 in 2014. The net loss of $18,187,000 for the year ended December 31, 2015 was higher than cash used in operating activities by $5,660,000. The difference is attributable primarily to a non-cash stock-based compensation of $3,226,000, non-cash charge for warrants issued in connection with the March 2015 backstop agreement of $1,583,000 and value of warrants related to the extension of the expiration date of $113,000. In comparison for the same period last year, the net loss of $20,453,000 for the year ended December 31, 2014 was higher than cash used in operating activities by $14,132,000. The difference is attributable primarily to revaluation of derivative liabilities of $8,849,000, non-cash loss on extinguishment of derivative liabilities of $2,463,000, non-cash stock-based compensation of $2,168,000, and losses on foreign currency transactions and issuance of preferred stock of $151,000 and $90,000, respectively.

 

Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities

 

Cash provided by (used in) investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $11,420,000, attributable to the proceeds on the sale of short-term investments as compared to cash used in investing activities of $23,608,000 for the same period in 2015 due to the purchase of short-term investments.

 

Cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $23,608,000 attributable to the purchase of short-term investments as compared to $25,000 for the same period in 2014 due to the purchase of software for our German subsidiary.

 

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $7,092,000 as compared to $43,629,000 for the same period in 2015. During 2016, we generated net proceeds of $6,229,000 from the sale of our common stock in the at-the-market program and received net proceeds of $863,000 from the exercise of stock options.

 

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $43,629,000 as compared to $8,358,000 for the same period in 2014. During 2015, we generated $28,452,000 net proceeds from the sale of our common stock in an at-the-market program; received $14,658,000 and $493,000 net proceeds from the exercise of warrants and stock options, respectively. In comparison to the same period in 2014, we generated net proceeds of $6,723,000 and $1,319,000 from the sale of our common stock and Series C-3 preferred stock, respectively, and received net proceeds of $318,000 from the exercise of stock options.

 

Funding Requirements and Liquidity

Our total cash on hand and short-term investments as of December 31, 2016 was $20.2 million, excluding restricted cash of $0.2 million, compared with $35.4 million and $4.3 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In addition, we have approximately $4.1 million available under our current at-the-market program at December 31, 2016.  In August 2016, we entered into a new At-the-Market Issuance Sales Agreement (the "ATM program") with FBR Capital Markets & Co. (“FBR”), the successor in interest to MLV, on terms identical to the Sales Agreement for our current at-the-market program. This new agreement allows us to sell up to $40 million of shares of our common stock; however, we cannot access the at-the-market program under the new sales agreement unless and until (i) we and Manchester Securities Corp. (“Manchester”) agree as to the exercise or waiver of Manchester’s participation rights in the new ATM program, which rights were granted in a Consent and Exchange Agreement dated September 15, 2014, and apply to any equity financing we undertake until September 15, 2017, and (ii) we amend our existing shelf registration statement or file a new registration statement that includes the prospectus for the new at-the-market program. (See Note 4).

 

 

Because our business has not currently generated positive operating cash flow, we will need to raise additional capital in order to continue to fund our research and development activities and our business development activities, as well as to fund operations generally. Our continued operations and completion of our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial for Neutrolin in hemodialysis catheters in the U.S., which was initiated in December 2015, will depend on our ability to raise sufficient additional funds through various potential sources, such as equity, debt financings, and/or strategic relationships. We plan to conduct a Phase 3 clinical trial in oncology patients with catheters in the U.S., for which additional funds over and above the funds needed for the ongoing hemodialysis Phase 3 clinical trial will be required before such trial can commence. We can provide no assurances that financing or strategic relationships will be available on acceptable terms, or at all, that may enable us to complete our hemodialysis study and commence our oncology study.

We expect to continue to fund operations from cash on hand and through capital raising sources as previously described, which may be dilutive to existing stockholders, through revenues from the licensing of our products, or through strategic alliances. At December 31, 2016, we have approximately $4.1 million available under our current at-the market program. We also have $60.0 million available under our current shelf registration for the issuance of equity, debt or equity-linked securities. We may utilize our ATM program, if conditions allow, to support our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial for Neutrolin in hemodialysis catheters in the U.S. Additionally, we may seek to sell additional equity or debt securities through one or more discrete transactions, or enter into a strategic alliance arrangement, but can provide no assurances that any such financing or strategic alliance arrangement will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Moreover, the incurrence of indebtedness in connection with a debt financing would result in increased fixed obligations and could contain covenants that would restrict our operations. Raising additional funds through strategic alliance arrangements with third parties may require significant time to complete and force us to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us or our stockholders. Our actual cash requirements may vary materially from those now planned due to a number of factors, including any change in the focus and direction of our research and development programs, any acquisition or pursuit of development of new product candidates, competitive and technical advances, the costs of commercializing any of our product candidates, and costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any patent claims and any other intellectual property rights.

 

While we expect to grow product sales, we do not anticipate that we will generate significant product revenues in the foreseeable future. In the absence of such revenue, we are likely to continue generating operating cash flow deficits. We expect to incur increases in our cash used in operations as we continue our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials, pursue business development activities, incur additional legal costs to defend our intellectual property and seek FDA approval of Neutrolin in the U.S.

 

Based on our cash resources at December 31, 2016 and the expected cost of the Phase 3 clinical trial in hemodialysis catheters in the U.S., we believe that our existing cash and short-term investments will be insufficient to fund our operations through 2017 and will not be sufficient to complete the ongoing Phase 3 trial for hemodialysis catheters in the U.S. or to begin the planned Phase 3 trial for oncology patients with catheters. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be forced to slow or discontinue our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial, and will be unable to commence our planned Phase 3 clinical trial for oncology patients with catheters. We could also be required to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of our research and development programs. Each of these alternatives would likely have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

Contractual Obligations

 

We entered into a sublease for 4,700 square feet of office space in Bedminster, New Jersey, which runs from April 1, 2015 until March 31, 2018. Rent is $5,000 per month plus occupancy costs such as utilities, maintenance and taxes. In accordance with the lease agreement, we deposited $5,000 with the landlord, the equivalent of one month rent.

 

Our German subsidiary entered into a lease agreement for its offices in Fulda, Germany. The lease initially had a term of 36 months which commenced on September 1, 2013 for a base monthly payment of €498. A new lease agreement commenced on November 1, 2016 which is renewable every three months for a base monthly payment of €461.

Under our current lease agreements, the total estimated remaining lease obligation as of December 31, 2016 is set forth below:

 

2017	$62,237
2018	15,000
Total	$77,237

 

Critical Accounting Estimates

 

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and expenses. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate these estimates and judgments, including those described below. We base our estimates on our historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. These estimates and assumptions form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results and experiences may differ materially from these estimates.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 3 to our financial statements included with this report, we believe that the following accounting policies are the most critical to aid you in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial results and affect the more significant judgments and estimates that we use in the preparation of our financial statements.

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for stock options according to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) No. 718, “Compensation — Stock Compensation” (“ASC 718”).  Share-based compensation cost is measured at grant date, based on the estimated fair value of the award using a Black-Scholes option pricing model for options with service or performance based conditions and a Monte Carlo option pricing model for options with market vesting conditions. Stock-based compensation cost is recognized as expense, over the employee’s requisite service period on a straight-line basis.

Effective October 1, 2016, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which was applied retroactively effective January 1, 2016, to account for forfeitures as they occur. Under ASU 2016-09, all share-based awards will be recognized on a straight-line method, assuming all awards granted will vest. Forfeitures of share-based awards will be recognized in the period in which they occur. Prior to the adoption of ASU 2016-09, share-based compensation cost was measured at grant date, based on the estimated fair value of the award, and was recognized as expense net of expected forfeitures, over the employee’s requisite service period on a straight-line basis. 

We account for stock options granted to non-employees on a fair value basis using the Black-Scholes option pricing model in accordance with ASC 718 and ASC No. 505-50, “Equity-Based Payments to Non-Employees” (“ASC 505”).  The non-cash charge to operations for non-employee options with time based vesting provisions is based on the fair value of the options remeasured each reporting period and amortized to expense over the related vesting period. The non-cash charge to operations for non-employee options with performance based vesting provisions is recorded when the achievement of the performance condition is probable and remeasured each reporting period until the performance condition is achieved.

 

Valuations incorporate several variables, including expected term, expected volatility, expected dividend yield and a risk-free interest rate.  We estimate the expected term of the options granted based on anticipated exercises in future periods. Prior to 2015, the expected volatility used in the valuation of our stock options was based on the historical volatility of publicly traded peer group companies due to the limited trading history of our common stock. Beginning in the first quarter of 2015, the expected stock price volatility for our stock options is calculated based on the historical volatility since the initial public offering of our common stock in March 2010, weighted pre and post CE Mark approval in the European Union. The expected dividend yield reflects our current and expected future policy for dividends on our common stock.  To determine the risk-free interest rate, we utilize the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant with a term consistent with the expected term of our awards. 

 

Revenue Recognition

 

We recognize revenue in accordance with SEC SAB No. 101, “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements” (“SAB 101”), as amended by SAB No. 104, “Revenue Recognition” (“SAB 104”) and FASB ASC 605, “Revenue Recognition” (“ASC 605”). Our product Neutrolin received its CE Mark in Europe in July 2013 and shipment of product to the dialysis centers began in December 2013. In accordance with SAB 101 and SAB 104, we recognize revenue from product sales when the following four revenue recognition criteria are met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the selling price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured. We recognize revenue upon shipment of product to the dialysis centers because the four revenue recognition criteria are met at that time. For an upfront payment related to an exclusive distribution agreement, we record it as deferred revenue and recognize revenue on a straight-line basis over the contractual term of the agreement

In October 2015, we shipped product with less than 75% of its remaining shelf life to a customer and issued a guarantee that any product shipped with less than 75% of its shelf life remaining would be replaced by us if the customer was not able to sell the product before it expired. As a result of this warranty, we may have an additional performance obligation (i.e. accept returned product and deliver new product to the customer) if the customer is unable to sell the short-dated product. Due to limited sales experience with the customer, we were unable to estimate the amount of the warranty obligation that may be incurred as a result of this shipment. Therefore, we deferred the revenue and related cost of sales associated with the original shipment of this product. Since we will be unable to resell the expired product if returned by the customer, the deferred revenue and related cost of sales is presented net as “Deferred revenue” on the consolidated balance sheet. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized 35.6% of deferred revenue and related cost of sales amounting to $106,000 and $63,000, respectively. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, deferred revenue on shipment to distributor was $75,000 and $121,000, respectively.

 

During the year ended December 31, 2014, we entered into a distribution agreement with Wonik Corporation, a South Korean company, to market, sell and distribute Neutrolin for hemodialysis and oncolytic patients upon receipt of regulatory approval in Korea. Upon execution of the agreement, Wonik paid to us a non-refundable $50,000 payment and will pay an additional $50,000 upon receipt of the product registration necessary to sell Neutrolin in the Republic of Korea. Revenue associated with the non-refundable up-front payment under this arrangement is deferred and recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the contractual term of our agreement. Deferred revenue related to this agreement at December 31, 2016 and 2015 amounted to approximately $29,000 and $38,000, respectively.

 

Inventory Valuation

 

We engage third parties to manufacture and package inventory held for sale and warehouse such goods until packaged for final distribution and sale. Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market price with cost determined on a first-in, first-out basis. Inventories are reviewed periodically to identify slow-moving or obsolete inventory based on sales activity, both projected and historical, as well as product shelf-life. In evaluating the recoverability of our inventories, we consider the probability that revenue will be obtained from the future sale of the related inventory and, if required, will write down inventory quantities in excess of expected requirements. Expired inventory is disposed of and the related costs are recognized as cost of product sales in our consolidated statements of operations.

 

We analyze our inventory levels to identify inventory that may expire prior to sale, inventory that has a cost basis in excess of its estimated realizable value, or inventory in excess of expected sales requirements. Although the manufacturing of our products is subject to strict quality controls, certain batches or units of product may no longer meet quality specifications or may expire, which would require adjustments to our inventory values.

 

In the future, reduced demand, quality issues or excess supply beyond those anticipated by management may result in an adjustment to inventory levels, which would be recorded as an increase to cost of product sales. The determination of whether or not inventory costs will be realizable requires estimates by our management. A critical input in this determination is future expected inventory requirements based on our internal sales forecasts which we then compare to the expiry dates of inventory on hand. To the extent that inventory is expected to expire prior to being sold, we will write down the value of inventory. If actual results differ from those estimates, additional inventory write-offs may be required.

 

Short-Term Investments

 

We determine the appropriate classification of marketable securities at the time of purchase and reevaluate such designation as of each balance sheet date. Investments in marketable debt and equity securities classified as available-for-sale are reported at fair value. Fair values of our investments are determined using quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities or quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Our marketable securities are highly liquid and consist of U.S. government agency securities, high-grade corporate obligations and commercial paper with maturities of more than 90 days but less than 12 months. Changes in fair value that are considered temporary are reported net of tax in other comprehensive income (loss). Realized gains and losses, amortization of premiums and discounts and interest and dividends earned are included in income (expense) on the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). The cost of investments for purposes of computing realized and unrealized gains and losses is based on the specific identification method. Investments with maturities beyond one year, if any, are classified as short-term based on management’s intent to fund current operations with these securities or to make them available for current operations. For declines, if any, in the fair value of equity securities that are considered other-than-temporary, impairment losses are charged to other (income) expense, net. We consider available evidence in evaluating potential impairments of our investments, including the duration and extent to which fair value is less than cost and, for equity securities, our ability and intent to hold the investments.

Fair Value Measurements

 

We categorize our financial instruments into a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritize the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). If the inputs used to measure fair value fall within different levels of the hierarchy, the category level is based on the lowest priority level input that is significant to the fair value measurement of the instrument. Financial assets recorded at fair value on our condensed consolidated balance sheets are categorized as follows:

 

Embedded Derivative Liabilities:

 

We have previously had several series of preferred stock and warrants that contained embedded derivatives.  We evaluate all our financial instruments to determine if those instruments or any embedded components of those instruments qualify as derivatives that need to be separately accounted for in accordance with FASB ASC 815, “Derivatives and Hedging”.   Embedded derivatives satisfying certain criteria are recorded at fair value at issuance and marked-to-market at each balance sheet date with the change in the fair value recorded as income or expense.  In addition, upon the occurrence of an event that requires the derivative liability to be reclassified to equity, the derivative liability is revalued to fair value at that date.  

 

We account for stock warrants as either equity instruments or derivative liabilities depending on the specific terms of the warrant agreement.  Stock warrants that allow for cash settlement or provide for certain modifications of the warrant exercise price are accounted for as derivative liabilities.  For those liability-classified warrants that have down-round provisions which allow the exercise price to be adjusted as a result of certain future financing transactions, we use level 3 inputs to value those warrants. The estimated fair values of the warrant liabilities with downround protection were determined using a Monte Carlo option pricing model which takes into account the probabilities of certain events occurring over the life of the warrants.  The derivative liabilities are adjusted to their estimated fair values at each reporting period, with any decrease or increase in the estimated fair value being recorded in other income (expense).

 

Recent Authoritative Pronouncements:

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued new guidance related to how an entity should recognize revenue. The guidance specifies that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services. In addition, the guidance expands the required disclosures related to revenue and cash flows from contracts with customers. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of 2017. Early adoption is not permitted and retrospective application is required. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In July 2015, the FASB issued an accounting standard that requires inventory be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value and options that currently exist for market value be eliminated. The standard defines net realizable value as estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal, and transportation and is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those fiscal years with early adoption permitted. The guidance should be applied prospectively. We are evaluating the impact the adoption of this guidance will have on the determination or reporting of our consolidated financial statements.

In November 2015, the FASB issued guidance that requires that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. The current requirement that deferred tax liabilities and assets of a tax-paying component of an entity be offset and presented as a single amount is not affected by this amendment. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted and the standard may be applied either retrospectively or on a prospective basis to all deferred tax assets and liabilities. We are evaluating the impact the adoption of this guidance will have on the determination or reporting of our consolidated financial statements.

 

In January 2016, the FASB issued a new standard that modifies certain aspects of the recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. The accounting standard update is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. We are currently assessing the impact that adopting this new accounting guidance will have on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued new guidance related to how an entity should lease assets and lease liabilities. The guidance specifies that an entity who is a lessee under lease agreements should recognize lease assets and lease liabilities for those leases classified as operating leases under previous FASB guidance. Accounting for leases by lessors is largely unchanged under the new guidance. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of 2019. Early adoption is permitted. In transition, lessees and lessors are required to recognize and measure leases at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In April 2016, the FASB issued an update which clarifies two aspects of the new revenue guidance by providing guidance on how to identify performance obligations and providing implementation guidance surrounding licensing. The amendments in this update do not change the core principle of the new revenue guidance. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of 2017. Early adoption is not permitted and retrospective application is required. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In June 2016, the FASB issued new guidance which replaces the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2020. Early adoption is permitted beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In August 2016, the FASB issued new guidance which clarifies how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows in order to reduce diversity in practice. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. Early adoption is permitted. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In November 2016, the FASB issued new guidance which clarifies how restricted cash is presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. Early adoption is permitted. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In January 2017, the FASB issued new guidance which clarifies the definition of a business in a business combination. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. Early adoption is permitted. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

In January 2017, the FASB issued new guidance which simplifies the test for goodwill impairment. The guidance is effective for us beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2020. Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairments tests after January 1, 2017. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

 

Recently Adopted Authoritative Pronouncements:

 

In June 2014, the FASB issued an accounting standard that clarifies the accounting for share-based payments when the terms of an award provide that a performance target could be achieved after the requisite service period.  The standard requires that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a performance condition.   The amendments are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015.  This adoption did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued new guidance related to disclosures of uncertainties about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. The ASU requires management to evaluate whether there are conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the financial statements are issued and if management’s plans will alleviate that doubt. Management will be required to make this evaluation for both annual and interim reporting periods. We adopted this guidance as of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

 

In April 2015, the FASB issued new guidance which requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. This guidance requires retrospective adoption and was effective for us beginning in the first quarter of 2016.  This adoption did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 

 In March 2016, the FASB issued new guidance which simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. We adopted this guidance in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016. This adoption did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. 

 

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

Not applicable.

See the financial statements included at the end of this report beginning on page F-1.

Not applicable.

As of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) (the “Exchange Act”). Based on the foregoing evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

 

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during our fourth quarter ended December 31, 2016, or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls, that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

 

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and for the assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. As defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission, internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, our principal executive and principal financial officers and effected by our Board of Directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

Our internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect our transactions and dispositions of our assets; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of the consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our management and directors; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

In connection with the preparation of our annual consolidated financial statements, management, including, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, have undertaken an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on the criterial established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Management’s assessment included an evaluation of the design of our internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of those controls.

 

Based on this evaluation, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2016.

 

Friedman LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm that audited our consolidated financial statements included in this report, has issued their report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, a copy of which is included herein.

 

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of CorMedix, Inc.

 

We have audited CorMedix, Inc. and subsidiary’s (the “Company”) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

 

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

In our opinion, CorMedix, Inc. and subsidiary maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by COSO in 2013.

 

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of CorMedix, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2016, and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), cash flows, and stockholder’s equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016, and our report dated March 16, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon that included an explanatory paragraph regarding CorMedix, Inc.’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

/s/ Friedman LLP
East Hanover, NJ
March 16, 2017

 

 

None.

PART III

 

We have adopted a written Code of Conduct and Ethics that applies to our directors, executive officers and all employees. We intend to disclose any amendments to, or waivers from, our code of ethics and business conduct that are required to be publicly disclosed pursuant to rules of the SEC by filing such amendment or waiver with the SEC. This code of ethics and business conduct can be found in the “Investors - Corporate Governance” section of our website, www.cormedix.com.

 

The other information required by this Item concerning our directors and executive officers is incorporated by reference from the section captioned “Proposal No. 1—Election of Directors” and “Corporate Governance” contained in our proxy statement related to the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders scheduled to be held on June 6, 2017 which we intend to file with the SEC within 120 days of the end of our fiscal year pursuant to General Instruction G(3) of Form 10-K. The information required by this Item concerning compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act by our directors, executive officers and persons who own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock is incorporated by reference from the section captioned “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” contained in the proxy statement.

 

 

The information required by this Item concerning directors and executive compensation is incorporated by reference from the section captioned “Director Compensation,” “Executive Compensation – Summary Compensation Table” “Executive Compensation – Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” “Executive Compensation – Grants of Plan Based Awards,” “Executive Compensation – Option Exercises and Stock Vested,” “Executive Compensation – Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End 2015” “Executive Compensation – Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation,” and “Executive Compensation – Compensation Committee Report” contained in the proxy statement.

 

The information regarding our equity compensation plans required by this Item is found in Item 5 of this report. The other information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the information under the section captioned “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” contained in the proxy statement.

 

The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the information under the section captioned “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” and “Proposal No. 1—Election of Directors” contained in the proxy statement.

 

The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the information under the section captioned “Auditor and Audit Committee Matters” contained in the proxy statement.

 

 

PART IV

The financial statements of the Company and the related reports of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firms thereon have been filed under Item 8 hereof.

None.

The following is a list of exhibits filed as part of this Form 10-K:

Exhibit Number		Description of Document		Registrant’s Form		Dated		Exhibit Number		Filed Herewith
3.1		Form of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.		S-1/A		3/01/2010		3.3
3.2		Form of Amended and Restated Bylaws.		S-1/A		3/01/2010		3.4
3.3		Certificate of Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, dated December 3, 2012.		10-K		3/27/2013		3.3
3.4		Certificate of Designation of Series A Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on February 18, 2013, as corrected on February 19, 2013.		8-K		2/19/2013		3.3
3.5		Certificate of Designation of Series B Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on July 26, 2013.		8-K		7/26/2013		3.4
3.6		Certificate of Designation of Series C-1 Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on October 21, 2013.		8-K		10/23/2013		3.5
3.7		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Designation of Series C-1 Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on January 8, 2014.		8-K		1/09/2014		3.10
3.8		Certificate of Designation of Series C-2 Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on October 21, 2013.		8-K		10/23/2013		3.6
3.9		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Designation of Series C-2 Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on January 8, 2014.		8-K		1/09/2014		3.11
3.10		Certificate of Designation of Series C-3 Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on January 8, 2014.		8-K		1/09/2014		3.9
3.11		Certificate of Designation of Series D Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on October 21, 2013.		8-K		10/23/2013		3.7
3.12		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Designation of Series D Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on January 8, 2014.		8-K		1/09/2014		3.12

 

 

Exhibit Number		Description of Document		Registrant’s Form		Dated		Exhibit Number		Filed Herewith
3.13		Certificate of Designation of Series E Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on October 21, 2013.		8-K		10/23/2013		3.8
3.14		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Designation of Series E Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of CorMedix Inc., filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on January 8, 2014.		8-K		1/09/2014		3.13
4.1		Specimen of Common Stock Certificate.		S-1/A		3/19/2010		4.1
4.2		Stockholder Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2008, between CorMedix Inc. and ND Partners LLC.		S-1		11/25/2009		4.7
4.3		Form of Warrant Issued in September/November 2012.		10-Q		11/13/2012		4.2
4.4		Form of Sales Agent Warrant issued in September 2012.		10-Q		11/13/2012		4.3
4.5		Warrant issued to ND Partners in April 2013.		10-Q		5/15/2013		4.18
4.6		Form of Warrant issued on February 19, 2013.		8-K		2/19/2013		4.13
4.7		Form of Warrant issued on July 30, 2013.		8-K		7/26/2013		4.21
4.8		Form of Warrant issued on October 22, 2013.		8-K		10/18/2013		4.22
4.9		Form of Warrant issued on January 8, 2014.		8-K		1/09/2014		4.23
4.10		Form of Warrant issued on March 10, 2014.		8-K		3/05/2014		4.24
4.11		Form of Warrant issued on March 3, 2015.		8-K		3/04/2015		4.1
4.12		Amended and Restated Warrant originally issued May 30, 2013.		8-K		3/04/2015		4.3
4.13		Amended and Restated Warrant originally issued March 24, 2010.		8-K		3/04/2015		4.2
4.14		Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 3, 2015, by and between CorMedix Inc. and Manchester Securities Corp.		8-K		3/04/2015		4.5
10.1*		License and Assignment Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2008, between the Company and ND Partners LLC.		S-1/A		12/312009		10.5
10.2		Escrow Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2008, among the Company, ND Partners LLC and the Secretary of the Company, as Escrow Agent.		S-1		11/25/2009		10.6
10.3		Consulting Agreement, dated as of January 30, 2008, between the Company and Frank Prosl.		S-1		11/25/2009		10.12
10.4*		Manufacture and Development Agreement, dated as of March 5, 2007, by and between the Company and Emcure Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.		S-1/A		12/31/2009		10.14
10.5		Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Incentive Plan.		S-1/A		3/01/2010		10.8
10.6		Form of Indemnification Agreement between the Company and each of its directors and executive officers.		S-1/A		3/01/2010		10.17
10.7		Agreement for Work on Pharmaceutical Advertising dated January 10, 2013 by and between MKM Co-Pharma GmbH and CorMedix Inc.		8-K		1/16/2013		10.22
10.8		2013 Stock Incentive Plan		10-K		3/27/2013		10.27
10.9		Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated January 7, 2014, between CorMedix Inc. and the investors named therein.		8-K		1/09/2014		10.36
10.10		Preliminary Services Agreement dated April 8, 2015, between CorMedix Inc. and [RC]2 Pharma Connect LLC.		10-Q		8/06/2015		10.1
10.11		Release of Claims and Severance Modification, dated July 17, 2015, between Randy Milby and CorMedix Inc.								X

 

 

Exhibit Number		Description of Document		Registrant’s Form		Dated		Exhibit Number		Filed Herewith
10.12		Employment Agreement, effective February 1, 2017, between CorMedix Inc. and Robert Cook.**								X
10.13		Employment Agreement, effective February 1, 2017, between CorMedix Inc. and Judith Abrams.**								X
10.14		Employment Agreement, effective March 1, 2017, between CorMedix Inc. and John Armstrong.								X
21.1		List of Subsidiaries		10-K		3/27/2013		21.1
23.1		Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.								X
31.1		Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
31.2		Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
32.1		Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
32.2		Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.								X
101		The following materials from CorMedix Inc. Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): (i) Balance Sheets at December 31, 2016 and 2015, (ii) Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, (iii) Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, (iv) Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and (v) Notes to the Financial Statements.***								X

_____________

*	Confidential treatment has been granted for portions of this document. The omitted portions of this document have been filed separately with the SEC.
**	Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain portions of this exhibit.  Omitted portions have been filed separately with the SEC.
***	Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, the Interactive Data Files in Exhibit 101 hereto are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, are deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise are not subject to liability under those sections.

 

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

		CORMEDIX INC.
March 16, 2017		By: /s/ Khoso Baluch
		Khoso Baluch
		Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
March 16, 2017		By: /s/ Robert Cook
		Robert Cook
		Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

Signature	Title	Date
/s/ Khoso Baluch	Chief Executive Officer and Director	March 16, 2017
Khoso Baluch	(Principal Executive Officer)
/s/ Robert Cook	Chief Financial Officer	March 16, 2017
Robert Cook	(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
/s/ Cora Tellez	Chairman of the Board and Director	March 16, 2017
Cora Tellez
/s/ Janet Dillione	Director	March 16, 2017
Janet Dillione
/s/ Michael George	Director	March 16, 2017
Michael George
/s/ Myron Kaplan	Director	March 16, 2017
Myron Kaplan
/s/ Taunia Markvicka	Director	March 16, 2017
Taunia Markvicka