Kintara Therapeutics, Inc. - Annual Report: 2018 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington D. C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018

or

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from

Commission file number 001-37823

DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Suite 720-999 West Broadway

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Z 1K5

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(604) 629-5989

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Title of each class: Common Stock, par value $0.001

Name of exchange on which registered: The Nasdaq Capital Market

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 þ 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  þ  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. þ Yes   ☐ No

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of 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.  þ

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

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

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

As of December 29, 2017, the aggregate market value of the issued and outstanding common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the closing price of our common stock of $1.09 was approximately $22.8 million. For purposes of the above statement only, all directors, executive officers and 10% shareholders are assumed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for any other purpose.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of September 21, 2018 was 22,409,053.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE – None

FORM 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Background

DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”, “we”, “us”, or “our”) is a clinical stage drug development company with a focus on the treatment of cancer.   Our mission is to benefit patients and create shareholder value by developing and commercializing anti-cancer therapies for patients whose tumors exhibit features that make them resistant to, or unlikely to respond to, currently available therapies, particularly for orphan cancer indications where patients have failed, or are unlikely to respond to, currently available therapy.

We are developing VAL-083, a novel, DNA-targeting agent, for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme (“GBM”) and potentially other solid tumors, including ovarian cancer. VAL-083 is a first-in-class, DNA-targeting chemotherapeutic that demonstrated activity against a range of tumor types in prior Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical studies sponsored by the US National Cancer Institute (“NCI”). Our recent research has highlighted the opportunities afforded by VAL-083’s unique mechanism of action and its potential to address unmet medical needs by focusing our development efforts on patients whose tumors exhibit biological features that make them resistant to, or unlikely to respond to, currently available therapies.  For example, our research demonstrating VAL-083’s activity in GBM independent of the O6-methyl guanine methyltransferase (“MGMT”) methylation status allows us to focus patient selection based on this important biomarker. 

We have initiated two open-label, bio-marker driven Phase 2 studies in MGMT-unmethylated GBM. MGMT is a DNA-repair enzyme that is associated with resistance to temozolomide, the current standard-of-care chemotherapy used in the treatment of GBM. Approximately two out of three GBM patients have MGMT-unmethylated tumors and exhibit a high expression of MGMT, which is correlated with temozolomide treatment failure and poor patient outcomes. Our research demonstrates that VAL-083’s anti-tumor activity is independent of MGMT expression. In our Phase 2 studies we are using MGMT as a biomarker to identify patients for treatment with VAL-083. If successful, the result of these studies could position VAL-083 for advancement to pivotal clinical studies as a potential replacement for temozolomide in MGMT-unmethylated GBM. We anticipate presenting interim data from these studies at peer reviewed scientific meetings during calendar 2018 and 2019.

We have received notice to proceed from the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for a phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter study of VAL-083 in patients with Recurrent Platinum Resistant Ovarian Cancer (“REPROVe”). Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Nearly all ovarian cancer patients eventually become resistant to platinum (“Pt”) -based chemotherapy leading to treatment failure and poor patient outcomes. We have demonstrated that VAL-083 is active against Pt-resistant ovarian cancer in vitro. Based on ongoing evaluation and recent input from our recently-formed clinical advisory board, we are reassessing the ovarian cancer program. We are in the process of evaluating the best path forward in ovarian cancer and are looking at various strategic options including combination with PARP inhibitors.

In addition to our clinical development activities in the United States, pursuant to our collaboration with Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical (Group) Co. Ltd. (“Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company”), we have provided Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company certain commercial rights to VAL-083 in China where it is approved as a chemotherapy for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (“CML”) and lung cancer. Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company is the only manufacturer presently licensed by the China Food and Drug Administration (“CFDA”) to produce the product for the China market.

We have a broad patent portfolio to protect our intellectual property. Our patent applications claim composition of matter and methods of use of VAL-083 and related compounds, synthetic methods, and quality controls for the manufacturing process of VAL-083. We believe that our portfolio of intellectual property rights provides a defensible market position for the commercialization of VAL-083. In addition, VAL-083 has been granted protection under the Orphan Drug Act by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) for the treatment of gliomas, including GBM. The FDA has also granted Orphan Drug protection to VAL-083 for the treatment of medulloblastoma and ovarian cancer.

Our corporate development strategy is to advance our drug candidate into multiple clinical studies and then to consider licensing, or acquiring additional product candidates, in order to establish a product pipeline and position us for long-term sustainability and growth of shareholder value. We believe the experience of our clinical development team will position us to efficiently develop drug candidates that we may acquire, or license, in the future.

We intend to continue to evaluate options for our strategic direction. These options may include raising additional capital, the acquisition of another company and / or complementary assets, our sale, or another type of strategic partnership. 

Recent Highlights

VAL-083 Overview

Our product candidate, VAL-083, a DNA-targeting agent, is a first-in-class, small molecule, chemotherapeutic. “First-in-class” means that VAL-083 embodies a unique molecular structure which is not an analogue or derivative of any approved product, or product under development, for the treatment of cancer. Prior VAL-083 clinical studies supported by the NCI demonstrated activity against a range of cancers including lung, brain, cervical, ovarian tumors, and leukemia. As part of our business strategy, we leverage and build upon these prior NCI investments and data from more than 40 NCI- Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical studies with our own research to identify and target unmet medical needs in modern cancer care.

DNA-targeting agents are among the most successful and widely used treatments for cancer. Their efficacy is based on the ability to bind with cancer cell’s DNA and interfere with the process of protein production required for growth and survival of cancer cells.

Our research demonstrates the mechanism of action of VAL-083 is distinct from other DNA-targeting agents. VAL-083’s anti-cancer activity results from its forming DNA-cross links at the N⁷ position of guanine leading to DNA double strand breaks, cell-cycle arrest, and cancer cell death. We have presented research at peer-reviewed scientific meetings demonstrating that VAL-083 is active in patient-derived tumor cell lines and cancer stem cells that are resistant to other chemotherapies. These data, combined with clinical activity demonstrated against various cancers in prior NCI-sponsored clinical studies enhance our confidence that VAL-083 may offer an opportunity as a new therapeutic option for patients whose tumors exhibit biological features that cause them to be resistant, or unlikely to respond to, currently available treatments.

We are currently studying VAL-083 in multiple clinical studies for the treatment of GBM, the most common and aggressive form of brain cancer. We have also received clearance from the FDA of an IND for the use of VAL-083 in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The FDA Office of Orphan Products Development has granted orphan drug designations to VAL-083 for the treatment of glioma, ovarian cancer and medulloblastoma. VAL-083 has also been granted an orphan drug designation for the treatment of glioma in Europe. Orphan diseases are defined in the United States under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 as “any disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States”. The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 provides financial and other incentives including a seven-year period of market exclusivity in the United States to encourage the development of new treatments for orphan diseases.

VAL-083 Clinical Studies

We are currently developing VAL-083, a novel DNA-targeting agent for the treatment of GBM and potentially other solid tumors, including ovarian cancer. Our recent research has highlighted the opportunities afforded by VAL-083’s unique mechanism of action and its potential to address unmet medical needs by focusing our development efforts on patients whose tumors exhibit biological features that make them resistant to, or unlikely to respond to, currently available therapies.  For example, our research demonstrating VAL-083’s activity in GBM is independent of the MGMT methylation status allows us to focus patient selection based on this important biomarker. 

The evaluation of MGMT promotor methylation status has increasingly become common practice in the diagnostic assessment of GBM. In September 2017, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”), updated guidelines for the standard treatment of GBM based on MGMT methylation status. We believe these recently published guidelines provide for enhanced opportunities for us to capitalize on VAL-083’s unique mechanism of action by utilizing MGMT methylation as a biomarker to optimize patient selection for our novel DNA-targeting agent to target the majority of GBM patients who are diagnosed with MGMT-unmethylated tumors.

Our current priority is to leverage this research and VAL-083’s unique mechanism of action to efficiently advance our drug candidate for the most promising indications, including:

With respect to our STAR-3, Phase 3 study, other than to support the sole remaining enrolled patient, we have finalized the decision to discontinue this clinical study.

MGMT-unmethylated GBM

GBM is the most common and the most lethal form of glioma. According to the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, GBM occurs with an incidence of 3.20 per 100,000 person-years. Approximately 13,000 new cases of GBM were diagnosed in the United States and 16,000 in Europe during 2017. Within the GBM patient population, approximately two-thirds of patients are unmethylated with respect to their MGMT status.

Measurement of MGMT (O6-methyl guanine methyltransferase) methylation status has become routine in clinical practice as a biomarker that correlates with resistance to the standard-of-care chemotherapy with temozolomide (Temodar® “TMZ”), and patient outcomes in GBM. Approximately two-thirds of GBM patients’ tumors are characterized as “MGMT-unmethylated” and exhibit a high expression of MGMT, a naturally occurring DNA-repair enzyme, the activity of which nullifies the chemotherapeutic activity of TMZ. The development of new therapies for MGMT-unmethylated GBM is a significant unmet medical need. Importantly, the most recent update to NCCN guidelines states that the treatment benefit of TMZ is likely to be lower in GBM patients with an unmethylated MGMT promoter, and therefore, allows for withholding of TMZ in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM patients with MGMT-unmethylated tumors due to lack of efficacy.

We have demonstrated that VAL-083’s anti-tumor mechanism is active independent from the MGMT status in vitro. We believe this suggests the potential of VAL-083 as a replacement for the current standard-of-care chemotherapy, temozolomide, in MGMT-unmethylated GBM. We are therefore utilizing MGMT-methylation status to identify GBM patients who are unlikely to respond to temozolomide and instead treat them with VAL-083.

We believe that our research, in the context of the recent amendment to NCCN guidelines, highlights this unmet need and the opportunity for VAL-083 as a potential new standard-of-care in the treatment of MGMT-unmethylated GBM.

Phase 2 Study in MGMT-unmethylated rGBM in Collaboration with University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

In February 2017, we initiated a biomarker driven, open-label, single-arm Phase 2 study in collaboration with MDACC. This study will enroll up to 48 MGMT-unmethylated GBM patients whose tumors have recurred following treatment with temozolomide. These patients will not have been treated previously with Avastin. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival. Safety data from this study will become part of the overall safety dossier to support future filings with the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

As of September 21, 2018, forty patients had been enrolled in this Phase 2 study. The original starting dose of 40mg/m² of VAL-083 on days 1, 2 and 3, of a 21-day cycle, which was based on the results from our previous Phase 1/2 safety study of VAL-083 in patients with recurrent glioma (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01478178), has continued to demonstrate myelosuppression as the principal side effect of VAL-083, as per prior clinical experience. The safety profile has been well within the existing safety monitoring guidelines described in the present study protocol. However, in consultation with the principal investigator at MDACC, we are amending the protocol for this clinical study to modify the starting dose of VAL-083 to 30mg/m² on days 1, 2 and 3, of a 21-day cycle for this specific population previously treated with temozolomide. This modification may improve tolerance in this patient population and maximize overall exposure to VAL-083 thereby increasing the number of cycles of drug patients are able to receive. We are also modifying the patient screening platelet count, from 100,000/µL to 125,000/µL, for the same reasons.

It is important for this GBM patient population, which has been heavily pre-treated with temozolomide, to be able to be treated with multiple cycles of VAL-083 without significant hematological toxicities. We believe the modified dose of VAL-083, in addition to the change in patient eligibility platelet counts, should help provide for enhanced patient safety. We believe a positive outcome from this study can establish a position for VAL-083 in the treatment of MGMT-unmethylated rGBM.

Based on increased enrollment rates, we are forecasting full enrollment by December 2018. Data from the study will be used to help develop potential future clinical study designs with VAL-083 in MGMT-unmethylated rGBM. We anticipate providing updates regarding the progress of this open-label study, including safety data and observations regarding outcomes, at scientific meetings during 2018 and 2019. A detailed description of this study can be found at clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier Number: NCT02717962.

Phase 2 Study in Newly Diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated GBM

In September 2017, we initiated a single arm, biomarker driven, open-label Phase 2 study in newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated GBM patients at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China. The study is being conducted under our collaboration agreement with Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company.

In this Phase 2 study, VAL-083 is being combined with radiotherapy as a potential replacement for standard-of-care chemoradiation with temozolomide in patients with MGMT-unmethylated GBM. One goal of the study will be to confirm the safety of the three-day VAL-083 dosing regimen in combination with radiotherapy and to investigate outcomes of the combination of VAL-083 and radiotherapy in MGMT-unmethylated GBM patients.

We plan to enroll up to 30 newly-diagnosed, MGMT-unmethylated GBM patients in this study. The efficacy endpoints of the study include tumor response, as assessed by the Response Assessment in NeuroOncology (“RANO”), and progression-free survival (“PFS”), progression-free survival at six months (“PFS6”), and overall survival (“OS”), compared to historical results in the target population. The study is being conducted in two parts: (1) Dose-confirmation:  VAL-083 in cohorts (20, 30 and 40 mg/m²/day IV daily x 3 every 21 days) to assess safety and activity when administered concurrently with x-ray therapy (“XRT”) to confirm the maximum tolerated dose (“MTD”), and (2) Expansion: VAL-083 will be studied in up to 20 additional patients at the target dose, as determined by the dose-confirmation part of the study, administered concurrently with XRT. Assessments of safety and tolerability will be used to support further clinical development of VAL-083 in combination with radiotherapy. Pharmacokinetic assessments of VAL-083 in plasma and cerebral spinal fluid ("CSF") will be used to correlate drug exposure in the central nervous system with patient outcomes.

As of September 21, 2018, nine patients have been enrolled in this study. Dose confirming cohorts studying 20 and 30 mg/m²/day x three every 21 days have been completed and three additional patients have received a VAL-083 starting dose of 40 mg/m²/day x three every 21 days.

We plan to use data from the study to establish a dosing regimen and study design for advanced registration-directed clinical studies with VAL-083 in newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated GBM.

We anticipate providing updates regarding the progress of this study, including safety data and observations regarding outcomes, at scientific meetings during 2018 and 2019. A detailed description of this study can be found at clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier Number: NCT03050736.

Phase 3: VAL-083 STAR-3 (Avastin-refractory) GBM Study

In July 2017, we initiated our VAL-083 STAR-3 GBM study as an adaptive, randomized, controlled, pivotal Phase 3 clinical study in patients with GBM whose tumors have progressed following treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab). As previously disclosed in February 2018, based on a number of factors, including low patient enrollment, and our belief that the FDA’s approval of Avastin for rGBM may negatively impact the timely recruitment of suitable patients for this study, we decided to park this study and undertake a review and assessment of various study parameters. We have now finalized the decision to discontinue this clinical study, other than to support the sole remaining enrolled patient.

Ovarian Cancer

In April 2016, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for the use of VAL-083 in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

In September 2017, we filed an IND for the use of VAL-083 in ovarian cancer, along with a protocol for a Phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter, study of VAL-083 in patients with Recurrent Platinum Resistant Ovarian Cancer (the REPROVe study).

The FDA has allowed this study to begin enrolling patients, but based on ongoing evaluation and recent input from our newly-formed clinical advisory board, we are reassessing the ovarian cancer program. We are in the process of evaluating the best path forward in ovarian cancer and are looking at various strategic options including combination with PARP inhibitors.

Fast Track Designation

In December 2017, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for VAL-083, in rGBM.

Fast Track designation is designed to expedite the review of drugs that show promise in treating life-threatening diseases and address unmet medical needs, with the goal of getting new treatments to patients earlier. Fast Track designation provides sponsors with an opportunity for increased frequency for communication with the FDA to ensure an optimal development plan and to collect appropriate data needed to support drug approval. Additional benefits of the Fast Track designation may include an Accelerated Approval, a Priority Review, and a Rolling Review. Accelerated Approval is granted to drugs that demonstrate an effect on a surrogate, or intermediate endpoints, reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Priority Review shortens the FDA review process for a new drug from ten months to six months and is appropriate for drugs that demonstrate significant improvements in both safety and efficacy of an existing therapy. Rolling Review provides a drug company the opportunity to submit completed sections of its New Drug Application (“NDA”) for review by the FDA. Typically, NDA reviews do not commence until the drug company has submitted the entire application to the FDA.  Through the Fast Track designation, the FDA attempts to ensure that questions raised during the drug development process are resolved quickly, often leading to earlier approval and increased access for patients.

VAL-083 Mechanism of Action and the Opportunity in the Treatment of Cancer

Chemotherapy forms the basis of treatment in nearly all cancers. We believe that VAL-083 may be effective in treating tumors exhibiting biological features that cause resistance to currently available chemotherapy, particularly for patients who have failed, or become resistant to, other treatment regimens.

Based on published research and our own data, the cytotoxic functional groups, and the mechanism of action of VAL-083 are functionally different from alkylating agents commonly used in the treatment of cancer. VAL-083 has previously demonstrated activity in cell-lines that are resistant to other types of chemotherapy. No evidence of cross-resistance has been reported in published clinical studies.

Our research suggests that VAL-083 attacks cancer cells via a unique mechanism of action which is distinct from other chemotherapies used in the treatment of cancer. Our data indicate that VAL-083 forms inter-strand crosslinks at the N⁷ position of guanine on the DNA of cancer cells. Our data also indicate that this crosslink forms rapidly and is not easily repaired by the cancer cell resulting in cell-cycle arrest and lethal double-strand DNA breaks in cancer cells. VAL-083 readily crosses the blood brain barrier. Published preclinical and clinical research demonstrate that VAL-083 is absorbed more readily in tumor cells than in normal cells.

In vitro, our data also demonstrate that VAL-083’s distinct mechanism may be able to overcome drug resistance against a range of cancers. For example, VAL-083 is active against MGMT-unmethylated GBM cells which are resistant to treatment with temozolomide and nitrosoureas. VAL-083 also retains a high level of activity in p53 mutated non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”), ovarian cancer and medulloblastoma cell lines that are resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy.

Importantly, clinical activity against each of the tumors mentioned above was established in prior NCI-sponsored Phase 2 clinical studies. We believe that these historical clinical data and our own research support the development of VAL-083 as a potential new treatment for multiple types of cancer. 

The main dose-limiting toxicity (“DLT”) related to the administration of VAL-083 in previous NCI-sponsored clinical studies and our own clinical studies is myelosuppression, particularly thrombocytopenia. Myelosuppression, including thrombocytopenia, is a common side effect of chemotherapy. Myelosuppression is the decrease in cells responsible for providing immunity, carrying oxygen, and causing normal blood clotting. Thrombocytopenia is a reduction in platelet counts which assist in blood clotting. Modern medicine allows for better management of myelosuppressive side effects. We believe this offers the potential opportunity to improve upon the drug’s already established efficacy profile by substantially increasing the dose of VAL-083 that can be safely administered to cancer patients.

There is no evidence of lung, liver, or kidney toxicity even with prolonged treatment by VAL-083. Data from the Chinese market where the drug has been approved for more than 15 years supports the safety findings of the NCI studies.

Current Treatments for Gliomas and Glioblastoma Multiforme

Gliomas are a type of Central Nervous System (“CNS”) tumor that arises from glial cells in the brain or spine. Glial cells are the cells surrounding nerves. Their primary function is to provide support and protection for neurons in the CNS.

GBM is the most common and the most lethal form of glioma. According to the Central Brain Tumor Registry of The United State, GBM occurs with an incidence of 3.20 per 100,000 person-years. Approximately 13,000 new cases of GBM were diagnosed in the United States and 16,000 in Europe during 2017.

Common symptoms of GBM include headaches, seizures, nausea, weakness, paralysis and personality or cognitive changes such as loss of speech or difficulty in thinking clearly. GBM progresses quickly and patients’ conditions deteriorate rapidly progressing to death. The outlook for GBM patients is generally poor. The overall median survival in newly diagnosed GBM patients with best available treatments is less than 15 months, and two-year and five-year survival rates are approximately 30% and 10%, respectively. Median overall survival in newly-diagnosed, unmethylated GBM patients is 12.2 months.

In September 2017, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”), updated treatment guidelines for GBM. The recommended treatment regimen for GBM includes surgical resection to remove as much of the tumor as possible (“debulking”) followed by radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant chemotherapy with temozolomide with or without tumor treating fields (“TTF”). GBM patients whose tumors exhibit an unmethylated promotor for the gene encoding the DNA repair enzyme MGMT, a biomarker correlated with resistance to temozolomide, may be treated with radiation alone following surgery.

Patients with an unmethylated MGMT promotor have high levels of MGMT, a naturally-occurring DNA repair enzyme that repairs tumor-fighting lesions induced by TMZ thus allowing a patient’s tumor to continue to grow despite treatment which leads to poor outcomes. Measurement of MGMT methylation status has become routine in clinical practice as biomarker that correlates with response to TMZ and patient outcomes in GBM.

Probability of GBM Patient Survival Correlated to Expression of MGMT Enzyme

(Unmethylated promoter = High MGMT Expression and Significantly Shorter Survival)

TTF (Optune®) is a non-invasive technique for adults with GBM. TTF uses alternating electrical fields to disrupt tumor cell division, or cause cell death, thereby preventing the tumor from growing or spreading as quickly. A clinical study reported that GBM patients treated with TTF combined with TMZ experienced longer survival than those treated with TMZ alone.

The majority of GBM patients’ tumors recur within 6 – 12 months of initial treatment. Experimental therapy through clinical studies is recommended under NCCN guidelines for eligible patients. NCCN guidelines also recommend treatment with systemic chemotherapy, such as lomustine (“CCNU”). For patients who are eligible for additional surgical debulking, local chemotherapy with carmustine (“BCNU”) wafers may be employed. CCNU and BCNU target the same DNA-site as TMZ and are also subject to MGMT-related resistance.

Avastin (Avastin®, an anti-VEGF antibody) recently received full approval in the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan as a single agent for patients with recurrent GBM following prior therapy. Avastin carries an FDA “black-box warning” related to severe, sometimes fatal, side effects such as gastrointestinal perforations, wound healing complications and hemorrhage. There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival for GBM patients treated with Avastin.

Recurrent GBM patients, especially those whose tumors progress following treatment with Avastin, have limited or no treatment options and a very poor prognosis. According to published literature, the median survival for GBM patients whose tumors progress following Avastin is less than five months. 

VAL-083 Historical Data and Our Research in GBM

VAL-083 is first-in-class DNA targeting agent that readily crosses the blood-brain-barrier. Data from prior NCI-sponsored clinical studies with VAL-083 demonstrate activity against GBM and other CNS tumors. In general, historical NCI-sponsored studies demonstrate that tumor regression in brain cancer was achieved in 40% of patients treated and stabilization was achieved in an additional 20% to 30% of brain tumor patients following treatment with VAL-083. In these studies, VAL-083 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the median survival of high-grade glioma brain tumors, including GBM when combined with radiation versus radiation alone (p < 0.05) with results similar, or superior to, other chemotherapies approved for the treatment of GBM.

A Summary of Published Data adapted from Separate Sources Comparing the Efficacy of VAL-083

and Other Therapies in the Treatment of GBM

VAL-083 is Active Independent of MGMT

We have presented data at several peer reviewed meetings demonstrating that VAL-083 is active independent of MGMT resistance in GBM cell lines and other CNS tumor cells. Our research, along with that of others, demonstrates that VAL-083’s unique cytotoxic mechanism forms DNA cross-links at the N⁷ position of guanine and retains cytotoxic activity independent of MGMT expression in vitro. Our studies demonstrate that VAL-083 has more potent activity against brain tumor cells in comparison to TMZ and overcomes resistance associated with MGMT, suggesting the potential to surpass the current standard-of-care in the treatment of GBM.

A Summary of Our Data Demonstrating that VAL-083’s Anti-Tumor Mechanism is Distinct from, and can
Overcome, MGMT-Related Chemo resistance in the Treatment of GBM

In addition, historical NCI clinical study data and our own research support the activity of VAL-083 as a potentiator of radiotherapy. Radiotherapy in combination with temozolomide is the current standard of care in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM. Our research demonstrates that temozolomide and radiotherapy are ineffective against GBM cells exhibiting a high expression of MGMT, whereas VAL-083 potentiates the tumor-killing effect of radiation independent of MGMT expression. Furthermore, the combination of VAL-083 and radiation has been demonstrated to be active against GBM cancer stem cells (“CSCs”) in vitro. CSCs are often resistant to chemotherapy and form the basis for tumor recurrence and metastasis. GBM CSCs display strong resistance to TMZ, even where MGMT expression is low. However, our data demonstrates that GBM CSCs are susceptible to VAL-083 independent of MGMT expression.

A Summary of Our Data Demonstrating that VAL-083 Maintains Activity in Both Temozolomide-resistant GBM Cell Lines and Matched Cancer Stem Cells and Potentiates Radiotherapy

We believe that VAL-083’s more potent activity against brain tumor cells in comparison to TMZ, VAL-083’s ability to overcome MGMT-mediated resistance, and its activity against GBM CSCs suggests the potential of VAL-083 to surpass the current standard-of-care in the treatment of GBM.

Phase 1 – 2 Clinical Study Overview and Summary of Results

Forty-eight GBM patients whose disease progressed following prior treatment with temozolomide and Avastin were enrolled in an open-label, single arm dose-escalation study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and anti-cancer activity of VAL-083. The study was conducted at five centers in the United States: The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; the Brain Tumor Center at University of California, San Francisco; the Sarah Cannon Cancer Research Center in Nashville, Tennessee, Denver, Colorado; and the SCRI affiliate site at the Florida Cancer Specialist Research Institute in Sarasota, Florida.

Patients received VAL-083 on days 1, 2 and 3 on a 21-day treatment cycle. The Phase 1 portion of the study involved dose escalation cohorts until a maximum tolerated dose (“MTD”) was established at 40mg/m². A further 14-patient, Phase 2 expansion was then enrolled at the MTD to gather further safety data at our chosen therapeutic dose and to further explore the outcomes in this patient population.

In May 2016, we held an end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in which we discussed with the FDA the design of a Phase 3, registration-directed clinical program for VAL-083 in refractory GBM. Based on the input we received from the FDA, the agency confirmed that it would consider the totality of data available, including data obtained from our other planned clinical studies in related GBM populations, when assessing the NDA. The FDA also noted that we may be able to rely on prior NCI studies and historical literature to support nonclinical data required for an NDA filing under a 505(b)(2) strategy which allows a sponsor to rely on already established safety and efficacy data in support of an NDA.

We reported updated results of our Phase 1/2 clinical study at the 2016 ASCO annual meeting. In summary, these data are as follows:

Safety and Tolerability

In the Phase 1 dose escalation regimen, no serious adverse events (“SAE”) related to VAL-083 were encountered at doses up to 40 mg/m²/day.

Increasing frequency of, and higher grade, hematologic toxicities were observed at doses above 40 mg/m²/day. Consistent with the published literature, the observed dose limiting toxicity for VAL-083 is primarily thrombocytopenia (low platelets). Observed platelet nadir occurred at approximately day 18, and recovery was rapid and spontaneous following treatment.

Based on Phase 1 observations, fourteen additional patients were enrolled in a Phase 2 expansion cohort at 40mg/m², which was established as the MTD. Consistent with Phase 1, the dose of VAL-083 of 40 mg/m² on days 1, 2 and 3 of a 21-day cycle was generally well tolerated in Phase 2. At this dose, one subject previously treated with CCNU, a nitrosourea agent, reported severe (Grade 4) thrombocytopenia. As a result of this observation, the protocol inclusion criterion for platelet count was increased from 100,000/μL to 150,000/μL for patients receiving prior nitrosoureas within 12 weeks preceding enrollment. No other dose limiting toxicities were observed.

VAL-083 Safety Observations from Phase 1/2 Clinical Study

Doses Achieved

Based the results of our Phase 1/2 study, we confirmed that we achieved doses of VAL-083 that are higher than were utilized in the original published NCI-sponsored clinical studies. A summary in comparison to the NCI’s historical regimen is as follows:

Daily x 5 q 5wks refers to a dosing regimen of once per day for five consecutive days every five weeks (35-day cycle); while daily x 3 q 3wks refers to a dosing regimen of once per day for three consecutive days every three weeks (21-day cycle).

Our optimized dosing regimen increases the amount of VAL-083 delivered to the CNS by 60% over historical regimens without increased toxicity. Thus, the DelMar regimen achieves both a higher maximum concentration and higher overall exposure, which we believe may increase the likelihood of successful treatment outcomes in glioblastoma and other brain tumors.

Pharmacokinetics

Pharmacokinetic (“PK”) analyses showed dose-dependent linear systemic exposure with a short (1-2h) plasma terminal half-life; average Cmax at 40 mg/m²/day was 781 ng/mL (5.3µM). The observed PK profile is comparable to published literature. Prior NCI-sponsored studies demonstrated that VAL-083 readily crosses the blood brain barrier and has a long (>20 hour) half-life in the CNS.

We believe that this PK profile is optimal for the treatment of brain tumors: A long CNS half-life is expected to maximize exposure of the drug in the brain increasing the likelihood of successful treatment outcomes, while a short plasma half-life is desirable to minimize systemic side effects.

Observed pharmacokinetics from VAL-083 Phase 1 clinical study dose vs. AUC

Based on observed and previously published pharmacokinetics, DelMar believes that therapeutic doses equal to, or above, 20 mg/m² daily on days 1, 2 and 3 of a 21-day cycle should deliver sufficient levels of VAL-083 to brain tumors to achieve a therapeutic benefit.

MGMT & IDH1

High expression of MGMT and wild-type form of the enzyme isocitrate dehydrogenase (“IDH1”) have been previously shown to be diagnostic markers that correlate with resistance to currently available chemotherapies (e.g. temozolomide or nitrosourea) in the treatment of GBM and poor patient outcomes. Measurement of these biomarkers has become routine in clinical practice.

Notably, we have previously demonstrated that VAL-083’s anti-tumor mechanism is active independent from the MGMT status in vitro. We believe we will ultimately be able to use such biomarkers in a prognostic fashion to select the patients most likely to respond to treatment as we expand the clinical development of VAL-083.

.

Tumor Response and Outcomes

rGBM patients in our Phase 1/2 clinical study were not re-resected prior to treatment with VAL-083 and therefore had a growing recurrent GBM tumor at the time of enrollment. Patients were monitored for tumor response by MRI.

Consistent with un-resected rGBM, median progression free survival (“PFS”) was short at 1.2 months (range: 0.2 – 20.1 months). Five rGBM patients treated with VAL-083 were reported to have stable disease as their best response following treatment; the remainder reported progressive disease.

Disease progression is typical in a refractory GBM population with non-resected tumors. However, we believe that slowed progression may provide meaningful clinical benefit in this patient population through prolonged overall survival and improved quality of life.

According to published literature, GBM patients failing Avastin have a poor prognosis with expected survival under five months. Ad-hoc subgroup analysis of the Phase 1 dose-escalation data indicated a dose response trend and potential for improved survival. Increased survival was observed following initiation of treatment in a high dose (30 and 40mg/m², n=9) sub-group vs. a low dose (≤5mg/m², n=6) sub-group with median survival of >9 months vs. 4.4 months for the high and low dose groups, respectively. At the time of the analysis, more than half of patients receiving an assumed therapeutic dose survived more than nine months following Avastin failure; more than 40% survived for ten months and more than 20% survived for twelve months or more.

Observed Survival Based on Phase 1 Sub-Group Analysis

Analysis of twenty-two (22) patients receiving an assumed therapeutic dose of VAL-083 (≥20mg/m²) demonstrated median survival of 8.35 months following Avastin failure.

ASCO 2016: VAL-083 compared to published literature

While recognizing these data are representative of a relatively small, non-controlled Phase 1/2 clinical study, we believe these outcomes support the potential of VAL-083 to offer meaningful clinical benefit to GBM patients who have failed Avastin, compared to currently available therapy.

VAL-083 Historical Data and Our Research in Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in women and is the leading cause of death among women diagnosed with gynecological malignancies. In 2016, approximately 22,300 women in the US were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 14,300 died from their disease.

Without treatment, ovarian cancer spreads within the pelvic region and metastasizes to distant sites such as the lungs, liver, spleen and, rarely, the brain. The initial symptoms of ovarian cancer such as abdominal bloating, indigestion, pelvic pain, or nausea are often attributed to symptoms caused by a less serious condition. Therefore, in most cases, ovarian cancer is not diagnosed until it has progressed to an advanced stage when it is no longer possible to surgically remove all tumor tissue.

When diagnosed at an advanced stage the 5-year survival rate is less than 40%. Women with ovarian cancer receive chemotherapy following surgery to treat residual disease.

VAL-083’s activity against ovarian epithelial adenocarcinoma (“OEA”) and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (“SCC”) was reported in prior NCI-sponsored clinical studies. Importantly, NCI-researchers recommended VAL-083 for further advanced studies in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Pt-based chemotherapy is employed in the treatment of nearly 50% of all cancer patients and is employed in the treatment regimen of nearly all advanced-stage ovarian cancer patients.  Ovarian cancer patients whose tumors are sensitive to Pt-based chemotherapy have the most favorable outcome. Recently, the approval of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of ovarian cancer patients demonstrated improved outcomes, particularly patients whose tumors remain sensitive to Pt-based treatments.

Pt-based chemotherapies function by causing extensive damage to a cancer cell’s DNA. Cancer cells are adept at overcoming DNA damage or employing mechanisms to repair DNA damage induced by Pt-based chemotherapy. One of the most common obstacles to DNA-damaging chemotherapy is mutations to a gene called p53. Cellular processes governed by the p53 gene are critical in assessing DNA damage and determining if a cell should cease from dividing or self-destruct. When p53 does not function properly, cancer cells continue to divide despite the treatment with DNA-damaging chemotherapy, making these drugs ineffective and leading to treatment resistance. This occurs in nearly all cases of the most difficult ovarian cancer to treat – high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) – which accounts for up to 70% of ovarian cancer cases and approximately 90% of ovarian cancer deaths. P53 mutations are associated with resistance to Pt-based chemotherapy, which leads to treatment failure and increased mortality. Solving this problem is a major goal in the development of new treatments for ovarian cancer.

Unfortunately, the development of resistance to Pt-based agents is nearly inevitable, leading to disease recurrence and increased mortality. Ultimately, most women with advanced ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease with progressively shorter disease-free intervals. Those whose tumors recur within 6 months of Pt-based therapy are considered Pt-resistant/refractory and have a very poor prognosis.

The response rate to second line therapy for Pt-resistant ovarian cancer patients is in the 10-15% range and overall survival is approximately 12 months. The development of new chemotherapies and targeted agents to overcome Pt resistance in ovarian cancer is a significant unmet medical need.

We have presented data demonstrating that VAL-083’s distinct mechanism of action allows activity in tumors that are resistant to other therapies. We have shown that cytotoxicity of VAL-083 against ovarian cancer is independent of sensitivity to cisplatin or p53 status in vitro. We have demonstrated that VAL-083 is active in Pt-resistant ovarian cells harboring a range of p53-mutations.

Our research has demonstrated that VAL-083 not only overcomes Pt resistance, but the combination of VAL-083 with Pt-based chemotherapy displays synergy in multiple models in vitro and in vivo. This further suggests a distinct mechanism of action and potential use as part of a VAL-083/Pt-combination therapy.

The combination of VAL-083 with either cisplatin (A) or oxaliplatin (B) in the human H460 (WT p53) NSCLC model demonstrated significant super additivity (p≤0.05) and/or synergism (CI<1) for both combinations. This cytotoxic effect of VAL-083 in combination with either platinum drug was observed also in A549 (WT p53) and H1975 (mutant p53) NSCLC cells, independently of p53 status (not shown). Data, where applicable, are shown as mean ± SE; N=7.

While Pt-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for ovarian cancer, PARP inhibitors have recently provided a new treatment option for a subset of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. VAL-083 also demonstrates synergistic activity with certain PARP inhibitors, including olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoparib in vitro, suggesting VAL-083 may have utility in the treatment of ovarian cancer in combination with PARP inhibitors.

We believe that these data demonstrate the potential of VAL-083 to treat platinum-resistant ovarian cancers as a single-agent against platinum-resistant tumors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimens or in combination with PARP inhibitors.

Other Indications for VAL-083 – Potential Future Opportunities

VAL-083 in Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death around the world and effective treatment for lung cancer remains a significant global unmet need despite advances in therapy. Incidence of lung cancer in the United States is approximately 47 per 100,000 with the majority (85%) being NSCLC, the most common type of lung cancer. Globally, the market for lung cancer treatment may exceed $24 billion by 2033 according to a report published by Evaluate Pharma.

The activity of VAL-083 against solid tumors, including lung cancer, has been established in both preclinical and human clinical studies conducted by the NCI. DelMar has developed new nonclinical data to support the utility of VAL-083 in the modern treatment of lung cancer. In an established murine xenograft model of NSCLC, the activity of VAL-083 was compared to standard platinum-based therapy with cisplatin against human NSCLC cell lines A549 (TKI-sensitive) and H1975 (TKI-resistant). In the study, VAL-083 demonstrated superior efficacy and safety in the treatment of TKI-susceptible (A549) tumors and in TKI-resistant (H1975) tumors.

Central Nervous System Metastases of Solid Tumors

The successful management of systemic tumors by modern targeted therapies has led to increased incidence of mortality due to CNS metastases of lung cancer and other solid tumors. In June 2013, we split our Phase 1/2 clinical study protocol into two separate studies: one focusing solely on refractory GBM and the other focusing on secondary brain cancers caused by other tumors that have spread to the brain.

Based on historical clinical activity and our own research, we believe that VAL-083 may be suitable for the treatment of patients with CNS metastases who currently have limited treatment options. Subject to the availability of financial and operating resources, we plan to develop a separate protocol for the continued exploration of VAL-083 in patients with secondary brain cancer caused by a solid tumor spreading to the brain.

Pediatric Brain Tumors

Tumors of the brain and spine make up approximately 20 percent of all childhood cancers and they are the second most common form of childhood cancer after leukemia.

The activity of VAL-083 against childhood and adolescent brain tumors has been established in both preclinical and human clinical studies conducted by the NCI. We have presented data indicating that VAL-083 offers potential therapeutic alternatives for the treatment of pediatric brain tumors including SHH-p53 mutated medulloblastoma. In March 2016, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for the use of VAL-083 in the treatment of medulloblastoma. Subject to the availability of resources, we intend to collaborate with leading academic researchers for the continued exploration of VAL-083 as a potential treatment of childhood brain tumors.

Additional Indications for VAL-083

In historical studies sponsored by the NCI in the United States, VAL-083 exhibited clinical activity against a range of tumor types including central nervous system tumors, solid tumors, and hematologic malignancies. We have established new nonclinical data supporting the activity of VAL-083 in different types of cancer that are resistant to modern targeted therapies and we believe that the unique cytotoxic mechanism of VAL-083 may provide benefit to patients in a range of indications. We intend to continue to research these opportunities, and if appropriate, expand our clinical development efforts to include additional indications.

VAL-083 Target Markets

DNA-targeting agents such as alkylating agents or platinum-based chemotherapy form the mainstay of chemotherapy treatments used in the treatment of cancers. Global sales of platinum-based chemotherapies reached nearly $2.5 billion in 2006 and declined to $600 million following the expiry of key patents. Alkylating agents such as temozolomide, bendamustine, nitrosoureas, and cyclophosphamide generated more than $1.3 billion in sales in 2016 after reaching a peak of $1.7 billion in 2014 (Evaluate Pharma).

Our product candidate, VAL-083, is a first-in-class DNA targeting agent with a novel mechanism of action. VAL-083’s anti-cancer activity was established in a range of tumor types in prior NCI-sponsored clinical studies. Based on this novel mechanism, we have demonstrated that the anti-cancer activity is maintained against tumor cells that are resistant to other DNA-targeting agents. We believe this positions VAL-083 as a potential chemotherapy-of-choice for patients whose tumors are resistant to current standard-of-care chemotherapy in orphan and major cancer indications.

Our ongoing research and development activities are focused on indications where VAL-083 demonstrated promising activity in prior NCI-sponsored studies and where our research suggests an opportunity to address significant unmet medical needs due to the failure of existing treatments.

Glioblastoma Multiforme

GBM is the most common and the most lethal form of glioma. According to the Central Brain Tumor Registry of The United State, GBM occurs with an incidence of 3.20 per 100,000 person-years. Approximately 13,000 new cases of GBM were diagnosed in the United States and 16,000 in Europe during 2017.

Newly diagnosed patients suffering from GBM are initially treated through invasive brain surgery, although disease progression following surgical resection is nearly 100%. Temozolomide (Temodar^®) in combination with radiation is the front-line therapy for GBM following surgery. Global revenues of branded Temodar reached $1.1 billion in 2009. Following patent expiry in 2013, global revenue for generic temozolomide exceeded $400 million in 2014 even though most patients fail to gain long-term therapeutic benefits. Approximately 60% of GBM patients treated with Temodar^® experience tumor progression within one year. Median overall survival in newly-diagnosed, unmethylated GBM patients is 12.2 months.

Bevacizumab (Avastin^®) has been approved for the treatment of GBM in patients failing Temodar^®. In clinical studies, only about 20% of patients failing Temodar^® respond to Avastin^® therapy and no improvement in median survival was reported. In spite of these low efficacy results, Avastin revenues exceeded $600 million in 2014.

The market for refractory (Avastin-failed) GBM is limited to those jurisdictions where Avastin is approved for the treatment of GBM. The United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and Switzerland represent the major markets where Avastin is used in the treatment of GBM.

Ovarian Cancer

According to Evaluate Pharma, the annual market for ovarian cancer therapies is projected to exceed $4.2 billion in 2024. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 22,000 women will receive a new diagnosis of ovarian cancer and approximately 14,000 women will die from ovarian cancer in the United States each year. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women, accounting for more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system.

The potential of VAL-083 in the treatment of ovarian cancer has been established in prior NCI-sponsored clinical studies and by our recent research.  The FDA has granted orphan drug status to VAL-083 as a potential treatment for ovarian cancer and we have recently received notice of allowance for our IND to initiate a Phase 1-2 clinical study to investigate the safety and effectiveness of VAL-083 in patients with recurrent platinum resistant ovarian cancer (VAL-083 REPROVe study).

Ovarian cancers are commonly treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Initial tumor response rates are relatively high. However, the development of resistance to Pt-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients is nearly inevitable.  Our research suggests that VAL-083 may offer a potential treatment option for ovarian cancer patients who are resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy and as a potential combination therapy with other agents.   We believe the profile of VAL-083 offers the potential to capture meaningful market share in the multi-billion ovarian cancer market.

Lung Cancer

According to Evaluate Pharma, the annual market for lung cancer therapies is projected to reach nearly $32.6 billion in 2024. Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world with 1.8 million cases in 2012, representing 13% of all cancers according to a report published by the World Cancer Research Fund International.  Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than the next top three cancers combined and it is responsible for 1.6 million deaths annually, representing 19% of all cancer deaths.  NSCLC represents approximately 85% of newly diagnosed lung cancers.

The potential of VAL-083 in the treatment of NSLSC has been established in both human clinical studies conducted by the NCI and by the drug’s commercial approval in China. We believe the profile of VAL-083 offers the potential to capture meaningful market share in the multi-billion NSCLC market.

VAL-083 Manufacturing

VAL-083 is a small-molecule chemotherapeutic. Chemical synthesis of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) was initially established by the NCI. We have made improvements to this process and have obtained patents on these improvements. The current manufacturing process involves fewer than five synthetic steps.

VAL-083 drug product is a lyophilized (freeze-dried) formulation that is reconstituted for intravenous injection. We anticipate that overall cost of goods for an eventual commercial product will be similar to other injectable, small-molecule pharmaceuticals.

We have engaged third-party contract manufacturers with the capabilities to establish the processes, procedures and quality systems necessary to meet U.S., Canadian, E.U. and other international manufacturing requirements in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) regulations.

Supply of VAL-083 for our clinical studies to-date has been provided through a collaboration with Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company. Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company as a manufacturer has established a commercial-scale manufacturing process based on the North American process originally developed for the NCI that has been licensed by the Chinese FDA (“CFDA”) for commercial supply of VAL-083 in China.

We have developed and patented certain intellectual property related to quality controls that are used in the release of VAL-083 for our clinical studies in the United States. This intellectual property is also required for product release under CFDA guidelines and we have granted access to our intellectual property for this purpose.

Research & Development Collaborations

Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company

Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding and collaboration agreement, dated October 25, 2012, we have established a strategic collaboration with Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company, a subsidiary of publicly traded Guangxi Wuzhou Zhongheng Group Co., Ltd. (SHG: 600252) (the “Guangxi Agreement”). VAL-083 is approved for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (“CML”) and lung cancer in China and Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company is the only manufacturer licensed by the CFDA to produce the product for the China market. Through the Guangxi Agreement, we have been provided drug product at the production price for our VAL-083 clinical studies in the United States and China and we have also secured certain commercial rights in China.

Pursuant to the Guangxi Agreement, we granted to Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company a royalty-free license to certain of our intellectual property, as it relates to quality control and drug production methods for VAL-083, and we agreed that Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company will be our exclusive supplier of VAL-083 for clinical studies and commercial sales, subject to Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company obtaining and maintaining cGMP certification by the FDA, EMA or other applicable regulatory agencies, and Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company being able to meet volumes ordered by us. In accordance with this agreement, we have contracted with established third-party suppliers for our Phase 3 clinical studies. We will continue to work with Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company to achieve FDA compliance in order to potentially have them as our future supplier for global sales of VAL-083.

This Guangxi Agreement also provides us with certain exclusive commercial rights related to drug supply. Specifically, the Guangxi Agreement establishes an exclusive supply relationship between us and Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company for the Chinese market and all markets outside China. Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company agreed that it may not sell VAL-083 for markets outside of China to any other purchaser other than us, provided that, during the first three years following regulatory clearance for marketing of VAL-083 in a particular country or region, we meet proposed sales volumes set by Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company for the country or region. In addition, Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company granted us a pre-emptive right in China (subject to our acceptance of proposed sales volume and prices) to purchase VAL-083 produced by Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company.

The term of the Guangxi Agreement (except as it relates to the exclusive rights in the China market) is indefinite, subject to termination upon written agreement of all parties, or if either party breaches any material term and fails to remedy such breach within 30 days of receipt of notice of the breach, or if any action to be taken thereunder is not agreed to by both parties, provided that such matter is referred to the chief executive officer of both parties, and they are unable to resolve such matter within 90 days. No payments have been made to date under the Guangxi Agreement.

Duke University Collaboration

In April 2017, we entered into a three-year collaboration with Duke University to evaluate VAL-083 as a front-line treatment for newly diagnosed patients with GBM. Under the terms of the collaboration, we will fund a series of preclinical studies to be conducted by Duke University’s Glioblastoma Drug Discovery Group to identify molecular characteristics of GBM tumors that are more likely to respond to VAL-083, and not the standard of care, temozolomide, as a front-line treatment or through combination therapies.

Patents and Proprietary Rights

Our success will depend in part on our ability to protect our existing product candidate and the products we acquire or license by obtaining and maintaining a strong proprietary position. To develop and maintain our position, we intend to continue relying upon patent protection, orphan drug status, Hatch-Waxman exclusivity, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities.

We have filed patent applications claiming the use of, and improvements related to VAL-083. Our patent filings also include proposed treatment regimens, improvements to the manufacturing process, formulation and composition of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, and finished dosage forms of VAL-083. We are prosecuting our patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions which we deem important for the potential commercial success of VAL-083.

Our patents and patent applications can be summarized in fourteen series as follows:

One of the inventors listed in our Series IX applications is an employee of the University of California, San Francisco. If a patent issues from a patent application in this series with a claim that the University of California employee conceived of, in whole or in part, then the Regents of the University of California will share ownership of any such patent with us. Our research agreements with the University of California address this issue by providing us with an exclusive option, for a limited period of time, to negotiate a royalty-bearing exclusive license for commercialization of the invention covered by that patent.

In addition to patent protection, we may also seek orphan drug status whenever it is available. If a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first regulatory approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, meaning that the applicable regulatory authority may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for a period of seven years in the U.S. and Canada, and 10 years in the E.U. Orphan drug designation does not prevent competitors from developing or marketing different drugs for the same indication or the same drug for a different clinical indication.

In February 2012, the FDA granted orphan drug status to VAL-083 for the treatment of glioma. In January 2013, the EMA also granted orphan drug protection to VAL-083 for the treatment of glioma. In the spring of 2016, the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development granted orphan drug designations to VAL-083 for the treatment of ovarian cancer and medulloblastoma.

In addition to our patents and orphan drug protection, we intend to rely on the Hatch-Waxman Amendments for five years of data exclusivity for VAL-083.Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, newly approved drugs and indications benefit from a statutory period of non-patent marketing exclusivity. These amendments provide five-year data exclusivity to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity, meaning that the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active ingredient. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments prohibit the approval of an abbreviated new drug application, also known as an ANDA or generic drug application, during the five-year exclusive period if no patent is listed. If there is a patent listed and the ANDA applicant certifies that the NDA holder’s listed patent for the product is invalid or will not be infringed, the ANDA can be submitted four years after NDA approval. Protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments will not prevent the filing or approval of another full NDA; however, the applicant would be required to conduct its own pre-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical studies to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide three years of data exclusivity for the approval of NDAs with new clinical studies for previously approved drugs and supplemental NDAs, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug, if new clinical investigations were conducted by or on behalf of the sponsor and were essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity covers only the new changes associated with the supplemental NDA and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active ingredient.

We also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information. We believe that the substantial costs and resources required to develop technological innovations, such as the manufacturing processes associated with VAL-083, will help us to protect the competitive advantage of our product candidate.

The protection of intellectual property rights in China (where our clinical product candidate, VAL-083, is manufactured pursuant to a collaboration agreement with the only manufacturer presently licensed by the CFDA to produce the product for the China market, and where VAL-03 is approved for the treatment of CML and lung cancer) is relatively weak compared to the United States, which may negatively affect our ability to generate revenue from VAL-083 in China.

Our policy is to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees and consultants, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual shall be our exclusive property.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Regulation by governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries is a significant factor, affecting the cost and time of our research and product development activities, and will be a significant factor in the manufacture and marketing of any approved products. Our product candidates will require regulatory approval by governmental agencies prior to commercialization. In particular, our products are subject to rigorous preclinical and clinical testing and other approval requirements by the FDA and similar regulatory authorities in other countries. Various statutes and regulations also govern or influence the manufacturing, safety, reporting, labeling, transport and storage, record keeping and marketing of our products. The lengthy process of seeking these approvals, and the subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial resources. Any failure by us to obtain, or any delay in obtaining, the necessary regulatory approvals could harm our business.

The regulatory requirements relating to the testing, manufacturing and marketing of our products may change from time to time and this may impact our ability to conduct clinical studies and the ability of independent investigators to conduct their own research with support from us.

The clinical development, manufacturing and marketing of our products are subject to regulation by various authorities in the U.S., the E.U. and other countries, including, in the U.S., the FDA, in Canada, Health Canada, and, in the E.U., the EMA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act in the U.S. and numerous directives, regulations, local laws and guidelines in Canada and the E.U. govern the testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion of our products. Product development and approval within these regulatory frameworks takes a number of years and involves the expenditure of substantial resources.

Regulatory approval will be required in all the major markets in which we seek to develop our products. At a minimum, approval requires the generation and evaluation of data relating to the quality, safety, and efficacy of an investigational product for its proposed use. The specific types of data required and the regulations relating to this data will differ depending on the territory, the drug involved, the proposed indication and the stage of development.

In general, new chemical entities are tested in animals until adequate evidence of safety is established to support the proposed clinical study protocol designs. Clinical studies for new products are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the pharmaceutical into either healthy human volunteers or patients with the disease (20 to 50 subjects), the emphasis is on testing for safety (adverse effects), dosage tolerance, metabolism, distribution, excretion and clinical pharmacology. Phase 2 involves studies in a limited patient population (50 to 200 patients) to determine the initial efficacy of the pharmaceutical for specific targeted indications, to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Once a compound shows preliminary evidence of some effectiveness and is found to have an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 studies are undertaken to more fully evaluate clinical outcomes in a larger patient population in adequate and well-controlled studies designed to yield statistically sufficient clinical data to demonstrate efficacy and safety.

In the U.S., specific preclinical data, manufacturing and chemical data, as described above, need to be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application, which, unless the FDA objects, will become effective 30 days following receipt by the FDA. Phase 1 studies in human volunteers may commence only after the application becomes effective. Prior regulatory approval for human healthy volunteer studies is also required in member states of the E.U. Currently, in each member state of the E.U., following successful completion of Phase 1 studies, data are submitted in summarized format to the applicable regulatory authority in the member state in respect of applications for the conduct of later Phase 2 studies. The regulatory authorities in the E.U. typically have between one and three months in which to raise any objections to the proposed study, and they often have the right to extend this review period at their discretion. In the U.S., following completion of Phase 1 studies, further submissions to regulatory authorities are necessary in relation to Phase 2 and III studies to update the existing IND. Authorities may require additional data before allowing the studies to commence and could demand that the studies be discontinued at any time if there are significant safety issues. In addition to the regulatory review, studies involving human subjects must be approved by an independent body. The exact composition and responsibilities of this body will differ from country to country. In the U.S., for example, each study will be conducted under the auspices of an independent institutional review board (IRB) at each institution at which the study is conducted. The IRB considers among other things, the design of the study, ethical factors, the privacy of protected health information as defined under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the safety of the human subjects and the possible liability risk for the institution. Equivalent rules to protect subjects’ rights and welfare apply in each member state of the E.U. where one or more independent ethics committees, which typically operate similarly to an IRB, will review the ethics of conducting the proposed research. Other regulatory authorities around the rest of the world have slightly differing requirements involving both the execution of clinical studies and the import/export of pharmaceutical products. It is our responsibility to ensure we conduct our business in accordance with the regulations of each relevant territory.

In order to gain marketing approval, we must submit a dossier to the relevant authority for review, which is known in the U.S. as a new drug application (NDA) and in the E.U. as a marketing authorization application (MAA). The format is usually specific and laid out by each authority, although in general it will include information on the quality of the chemistry, manufacturing and pharmaceutical aspects of the product as well as the nonclinical and clinical data. Once the submitted NDA is accepted for filing by the FDA, it undertakes the review process that currently takes on average 10 months, unless an expedited priority review is granted which takes six months to complete. Approval can take several months to several years, if multiple 10-month review cycles are needed before final approval is obtained, if at all.

The approval process can be affected by a number of factors. The NDA may require additional preclinical, manufacturing data or clinical studies which may be requested at the end of the 10-month NDA review cycle, thereby delaying approval until additional data are submitted and may involve substantial unbudgeted costs.

In addition to obtaining approval for each product, in many cases each drug manufacturing facility must be approved. The regulatory authorities usually will conduct an inspection of relevant manufacturing facilities, and review manufacturing procedures, operating systems and personnel qualifications. Further inspections may occur over the life of the product. An inspection of the clinical investigation sites by a competent authority may be required as part of the regulatory approval procedure. As a condition of marketing approval, the regulatory agency may require post-marketing surveillance to monitor for adverse effects or other additional studies as deemed appropriate. After approval for the initial indication, further clinical studies may be necessary to gain approval for any additional indications. The terms of any approval, including labeling content, may be more restrictive than expected and could affect the marketability of a product.

The FDA offers a number of regulatory mechanisms that provide expedited or accelerated approval procedures for selected drugs in the indications on which we are focusing our efforts. These include accelerated approval under Subpart H of the agency’s NDA approval regulations, fast track drug development procedures, breakthrough drug designation and priority review. At this time, we have not determined whether any of these approval procedures will apply to our current drug candidate.

By leveraging existing preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data, we seek to build upon an existing knowledge base to accelerate our research. In addition, through our focus on end-stage population which has no current treatment options, regulatory approval for commercialization may sometimes be achieved in an accelerated manner. Accelerated approval by the FDA in this category may be granted on objective response rates and duration of responses rather than demonstration of survival benefit. As a result, studies of drugs to treat end-stage refractory cancer indications have historically involved fewer patients and generally have been faster to complete than studies of drugs for other indications. We are aware that the FDA and other similar agencies are regularly reviewing the use of objective endpoints for commercial approval and that policy changes may impact the size of studies required for approval, timelines and expenditures significantly.

The U.S., E.U. and other jurisdictions may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a “rare disease or condition,” which, in the U.S., is generally a disease or condition that affects no more than 200,000 individuals. In the E.U., orphan drug designation can be granted if: the disease is life threatening or chronically debilitating and affects no more than 50 in 100,000 persons in the E.U.; without incentive, it is unlikely that the drug would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and no satisfactory method of treatment for the condition exists or, if it does, the new drug will provide a significant benefit to those affected by the condition. If a product that has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first regulatory approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, meaning that the applicable regulatory authority may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for a period of seven years in the U.S. and 10 years in the E.U. Orphan drug designation does not prevent competitors from developing or marketing different drugs for the same indication or the same drug for different indications. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or MAA. After orphan drug designation is granted, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are publicly disclosed. Orphan drug designation does not convey an advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the review and approval process. However, this designation provides an exemption from marketing and authorization fees charged to NDA sponsors under the Prescription Drug Act (PDUFA Fees).

We are also subject to numerous environmental and safety laws and regulations, including those governing the use and disposal of hazardous materials. The cost of compliance with and any violation of these regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, accidental contamination or injury from these materials may occur. Compliance with laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment has not had a material effect on our capital expenditures or our competitive position. However, we are not able to predict the extent of government regulation, and the cost and effect thereof on our competitive position, which might result from any legislative or administrative action pertaining to environmental or safety matters.

Competition

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive and we may face competition from established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions worldwide.

Various products currently are marketed for the treatment of the cancers that we are targeting with VAL-083 or may target with future product candidates and a number of companies are developing new treatments. Companies also developing products for GBM include, but are not limited to, Celgene Corp., Celldex Therapeutics, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., Immunocellular Therapeutics Ltd., and many major pharmaceutical companies. Our success will be based in part on our ability to build and actively manage a portfolio of drugs that addresses unmet medical needs and create value in patient therapy.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical studies, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than products that we may develop. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies and technology licenses complementary to our programs or advantageous to our business.

We expect that our ability to compete effectively will depend upon our ability to:

Failure to do one or more of these activities could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Corporate History

We are a Nevada corporation formed on June 24, 2009 under the name Berry Only Inc. On January 25, 2013, we entered into and closed an exchange agreement (the “Exchange Agreement”), with Del Mar Pharmaceuticals (BC) Ltd. (“Del Mar (BC)”), 0959454 B.C. Ltd. (“Callco”), and 0959456 B.C. Ltd. (“Exchangeco”) and the security holders of Del Mar (BC). Upon completion of the Exchange Agreement, Del Mar (BC) became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours (the “Reverse Acquisition”).

DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is the parent company of Del Mar (BC), a British Columbia, Canada corporation incorporated on April 6, 2010, which is a clinical stage company with a focus on the development of drugs for the treatment of cancer. We are also the parent company to Callco and Exchangeco which are British Columbia, Canada corporations. Callco and Exchangeco were formed to facilitate the Reverse Acquisition.

On May 20, 2016, we effected a 1-for-4 reverse split of our common stock. All share amounts in this report give effect to the reverse split unless otherwise indicated.

Research and Development

During the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, we recognized $7,132,952 and $5,003,640, respectively, in research and development expenses.

Employees

We have four full-time employees and retain the services of approximately 15 persons on an independent contractor/consultant and contract-employment basis. As such, we currently operate in a “virtual” corporate structure in order to minimize fixed personnel costs.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. In determining whether to purchase our common stock, an investor should carefully consider all of the material risks described below, together with the other information contained in this report before making a decision to purchase our securities. An investor should only purchase our securities if he or she can afford to suffer the loss of his or her entire investment.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2018, our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, include an explanatory paragraph that such financial statements were prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern. A going concern basis assumes that we will continue our operations for the foreseeable future and contemplates the realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business.

For the year ended June 30, 2018, we reported a loss of $11,138,312, and a negative cash flow from operations of $9,850,850. We had an accumulated deficit of $52,441,337 as at June 30, 2018. As at June 30, 2018, we had cash and cash equivalents on hand of $5,971,995. We are in the development stage and has not generated any revenues to date. We do not have the prospect of achieving revenues until such time that its product candidate is commercialized, or partnered, which may not ever occur. In the near future, we will require additional funding to maintain its clinical studies, research and development projects, and for general operations. These circumstances indicate substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Consequently, management is pursuing various financing alternatives to fund our operations so it can continue as a going concern. Management plans to secure the necessary financing through the issue of new equity and/or the entering into of strategic partnership arrangements. We may tailor its drug candidate development program based on the amount of funding we are able to raise in the future. Nevertheless, there is no assurance that these initiatives will be successful.

The financial statements do not give effect to any adjustments to the amounts and classification of assets and liabilities that may be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern. Such adjustments could be material.

We have a limited operating history and a history of operating losses and expect to incur significant additional operating losses.

We are an early stage company and there is limited historical financial information upon which to base an evaluation of our performance. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses, and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We expect to incur substantial additional net expenses over the next several years as our research, development and commercial activities increase. The amount of future losses and when, if ever, we will achieve profitability are uncertain. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability will depend on, among other things, successful completion of the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidate; obtaining necessary regulatory approvals from the FDA and international regulatory agencies; successful manufacturing, sales and marketing arrangements; and raising sufficient funds to finance our activities. If we are unsuccessful at some or all of these undertakings, our business, prospects and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. 

We will need to raise additional capital, which may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings and/or license and development agreements with collaboration partners. As of June 30, 2018, we had cash and cash equivalents to fund operations into the middle of calendar 2019. We will need to raise additional capital in the near future. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, then-existing stockholders’ interests may be materially diluted, and the terms of such securities could include liquidation or other preferences that adversely their rights as common stockholders. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specified actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. In addition, debt financing would result in fixed payment obligations.

In addition, we have retained Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. as a financial advisor to assist us in our evaluation of a broad range of strategic alternatives to enhance stockholder value, including additional capital raising transactions, an acquisition, merger, business combination, licensing and/or other strategic transaction involving us. There is no assurance that the review of strategic alternatives will result in us changing our business plan, pursuing any particular transaction, or, if we pursue any such transaction, that it will be completed. We do not expect to make further public comment regarding the strategic review until our Board of Directors has approved a specific transaction or otherwise deems disclosure of significant developments is appropriate.

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

Our inability to obtain additional financing could adversely affect our ability to meet our obligations under our planned clinical studies and could negatively impact the timing of our clinical results.

Our ability to meet our obligations and continue the research and development of our product candidate is dependent on our ability to continue to raise adequate financing. We may not be successful in obtaining such additional financing in the amount required at any time, or for any period, or, if available, that it can be obtained on terms satisfactory to us. In the event that we are unable to obtain such additional financing, we may be unable to meet our obligations under our planned clinical studies and we may have to tailor our drug candidate development programs based on the amount of funding we raise which could negatively impact the timing of our clinical results.

Our exploration and pursuit of strategic alternatives may not be successful.

In September 2018, we announced that we had retained Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. as a financial advisor to assist us in our evaluation of a broad range of strategic alternatives. Potential strategic alternatives that may be explored or evaluated as part of this process include the potential for capital raising transactions, an acquisition, merger, business combination, licensing and/or other strategic transaction involving us. Despite devoting efforts to identify and evaluate potential strategic transactions, the process may not result in any definitive offer to consummate a strategic transaction, or, if we receive such a definitive offer, the terms may not be as favorable as anticipated or may not result in the execution or approval of a definitive agreement. Even if we enter into a definitive agreement, we may not be successful in completing a transaction or, if we complete such a transaction, it may not enhance stockholder value or deliver expected benefits.

If we fail to comply with the continued minimum closing bid requirements of the NASDAQ Capital Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) or other requirements for continued listing, including stockholder equity requirements, our common stock may be delisted and the price of our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets could be negatively impacted.

Our common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ. We must satisfy NASDAQ’s continued listing requirements, including, among other things, a minimum closing bid price requirement of $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days. If a company’s common stock trades for 30 consecutive business days below the $1.00 minimum closing bid price requirement, NASDAQ will send a deficiency notice, advising that such company has been afforded a “compliance period” of 180 calendar days to regain compliance with the applicable requirements. Thereafter, if such a company does not regain compliance with the bid price requirement, a second 180-day compliance period may be available, provided (i) it meets the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other applicable requirements for initial listing on Nasdaq, including stockholder equity requirements, which we may be unable to satisfy (except for the bid price requirement), and (ii) it provides written notice to Nasdaq of its intention to cure this deficiency during the second compliance period by effecting a reverse stock split, if necessary. In the event the company does not regain compliance with Rule 5550(a)(2) prior to the expiration of the initial 180 calendar day period, and if it appears to the Nasdaq Staff that the company will not be able to cure the deficiency, or if the company is not otherwise eligible, the Nasdaq Staff will provide the company with written notification that its securities are subject to delisting from Nasdaq. At that time, the company may appeal the delisting determination to a Hearings Panel.

On June 28, 2018, we received a notification letter from NASDAQ informing us that for the last 30 consecutive business days, the bid price of our securities had closed below $1.00 per share. This notice had no immediate effect on our NASDAQ listing and we have 180 calendar days, or until December 26, 2018, to regain compliance. The closing bid price of our securities must be at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten consecutive business days to regain compliance.

If we are unable to regain compliance with the minimum closing bid price requirement by December 26, 2018, or such further extended period as may be provided by NASDAQ, or if we fail to meet any of the other continued listing requirements, including stockholder equity requirements, our securities may be delisted from NASDAQ, which could reduce the liquidity of our common stock materially and result in a corresponding material reduction in the price of our common stock. In addition, delisting could harm our ability to raise capital through alternative financing sources on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and may result in the potential loss of confidence by investors, employees and business development opportunities. Such a delisting likely would impair your ability to sell or purchase our common stock when you wish to do so. Further, if we were to be delisted from NASDAQ, our common stock may no longer be recognized as a “covered security” and we would be subject to regulation in each state in which we offer our securities. Thus, delisting from NASDAQ could adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through the public or private sale of equity securities, would significantly impact the ability of investors to trade our securities and would negatively impact the value and liquidity of our common stock.

If we are unable to effectively implement or maintain a system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial results and our stock price could be adversely affected.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related regulations require us to evaluate the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year, and to include a management report assessing the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for that fiscal year. Management determined that as of June 30, 2018, our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were not effective due to material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting related to our limited number of employees in our accounting department and inadequate segregation of duties over authorization, review and recording of transactions, as well as the financial reporting of such transactions. Any failure to implement new or improved controls necessary to remedy the material weaknesses described above, or difficulties encountered in the implementation or operation of these controls, could harm our operations, decrease the reliability of our financial reporting, and cause us to fail to meet our financial reporting obligations, which could adversely affect our business and reduce our stock price.

We are an early-stage company and may never achieve commercialization of our candidate products or profitability.

We are at an early stage of development and commercialization of our technologies and product candidate. We have not yet begun to market any products and, accordingly, have not begun or generate revenues from the commercialization of our product. Our product will require significant additional clinical testing and investment prior to commercialization. A commitment of substantial resources by ourselves and, potentially, our partners to conduct time-consuming research and clinical studies will be required if we are to complete the development of our product candidate. There can be no assurance that our product candidate will meet applicable regulatory standards, obtain required regulatory approvals, be capable of being produced in commercial quantities at reasonable costs or be successfully marketed. Our product candidate is not expected to be commercially available for several years, if at all.

We are currently focused on the development of a single product candidate.

Our product development efforts are currently focused on a single product, VAL-083, for which we are researching multiple indications. If VAL-083 fails to achieve clinical endpoints or exhibits unanticipated toxicity or if a superior product is developed by a competitor, our prospects for obtaining regulatory approval and commercialization may be negatively impacted. In the long-term, we hope to establish a pipeline of product candidates, and we have identified additional product candidates that we may be able to acquire or license in the future. However, at this time we do not have any formal agreements granting us any rights to such additional product candidates.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidate that we develop, the product may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party payor reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives that could harm our business.

The commercial success of our current or future product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidate will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities (such as Medicare and Medicaid), private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish and maintain pricing sufficient to realize a meaningful return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved drugs. Marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some non-U.S. markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which may negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

Our ability to commercialize VAL-083 or any other product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. The healthcare industry is acutely focused on cost containment, both in the United States and elsewhere. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability to sell our product candidate profitably. These payors may not view our products, if any, as cost-effective, and coverage and reimbursement may not be available to our customers, or may not be sufficient to allow our products, if any, to be marketed on a competitive basis. Cost-control initiatives could cause us to decrease the price we might establish for products, which could result in lower than anticipated product revenues. If the prices for our products, if any, decrease or if governmental and other third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage or reimbursement, our prospects for revenue and profitability will suffer.

There may also be delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Reimbursement rates may vary, by way of example, according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used. Reimbursement rates may also be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs or may be incorporated into existing payments for other services.

In addition, increasingly, third-party payors are requiring higher levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes of new technologies and are challenging the prices charged. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we, or they, commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. Further, the net reimbursement for drug products may be subject to additional reductions if there are changes to laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

We are dependent on obtaining certain patents and protecting our proprietary rights.

Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain patents, maintain trade secret protection and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of third parties or having third parties circumvent our rights. We have filed and are actively pursuing patent applications for our products. The patent positions of biotechnology, biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Thus, there can be no assurance that any of our patent applications will result in the issuance of patents, that we will develop additional proprietary products that are patentable, that any patents issued to us or those that already have been issued will provide us with any competitive advantages or will not be challenged by any third parties, that the patents of others will not impede our ability to do business or that third parties will not be able to circumvent our patents. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that others will not independently develop similar products, duplicate any of our products not under patent protection, or, if patents are issued to us, design around the patented products we developed or will develop.

We may be required to obtain licenses from third parties to avoid infringing patents or other proprietary rights. No assurance can be given that any licenses required under any such patents or proprietary rights would be made available, if at all, on terms we find acceptable. If we do not obtain such licenses, we could encounter delays in the introduction of products or could find that the development, manufacture or sale of products requiring such licenses could be prohibited.

A number of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and research and academic institutions have developed technologies, filed patent applications or received patents on various technologies that may be related to or affect our business. Some of these technologies, applications or patents may conflict with our technologies or patent applications. Such conflict could limit the scope of the patents, if any, that we may be able to obtain or result in the denial of our patent applications. In addition, if patents that cover our activities are issued to other companies, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain licenses to these patents at a reasonable cost or be able to develop or obtain alternative technology. If we do not obtain such licenses, we could encounter delays in the introduction of products, or could find that the development, manufacture or sale of products requiring such licenses could be prohibited. In addition, we could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves in suits brought against us on patents it might infringe or in filing suits against others to have such patents declared invalid.

Patent applications in the U.S. are maintained in secrecy and not published if either: i) the application is a provisional application or, ii) the application is filed and we request no publication, and certify that the invention disclosed “has not and will not” be the subject of a published foreign application. Otherwise, U.S. applications or foreign counterparts, if any, publish 18 months after the priority application has been filed. Since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we or any licensor were the first creator of inventions covered by pending patent applications or that we or such licensor was the first to file patent applications for such inventions. Moreover, we might have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost to us, even if the eventual outcome were favorable to us. There can be no assurance that our patents, if issued, would be held valid or enforceable by a court or that a competitor’s technology or product would be found to infringe such patents.

Moreover, we may be subject to third-party preissuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

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

In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in China (where our clinical product candidate, VAL-083, is manufactured pursuant to a collaboration agreement with the only manufacturer presently licensed by the China Food and Drug Administration to produce the product for the China market, and where VAL-083 is approved for the treatment of CML and lung cancer) is relatively weak compared to the United States, which may negatively affect our ability to generate royalty revenue from sales of VAL-083 in China.

Much of our know-how and technology may not be patentable. To protect our rights, we require employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators to enter into confidentiality agreements. There can be no assurance, however, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure. Further, our business may be adversely affected by competitors who independently develop competing technologies, especially if we obtain no, or only narrow, patent protection.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and affect patent litigation. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act. However, many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We may be unable to protect our patents and proprietary rights.

Our future success will depend to a significant extent on our ability to:

We can provide no assurance that our patent rights will afford any competitive advantages and these rights may be challenged or circumvented by third parties. Further, patents may not be issued on any of our pending patent applications in the U.S. or abroad. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a product candidate, it is possible that before a product candidate can be commercialized, any related patent may expire, or remain in existence for only a short period following commercialization, reducing or eliminating any advantage of the patent.

If we sue others for infringing our patents, a court may determine that such patents are invalid or unenforceable. Even if the validity of our patent rights is upheld by a court, a court may not prevent the alleged infringement of our patent rights on the grounds that such activity is not covered by our patent claims.

In addition, third parties may sue us for infringing their patents. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to:

If required, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to obtain such licenses on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are sued for infringement, we could encounter substantial delays in development, manufacture and commercialization of our product candidates. Any litigation, whether to enforce our patent rights or to defend against allegations that we infringe third-party rights, will be costly, time consuming, and may distract management from other important tasks.

As is commonplace in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. To the extent our employees are involved in research areas which are similar to those areas in which they were involved at their former employers, we may be subject to claims that such employees and/or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims, which could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and which may have a material adverse effect on us, even if we are successful in defending such claims.

We are subject to various government regulations.

The manufacture and sale of human therapeutic and diagnostic products in the U.S., Canada and foreign jurisdictions are governed by a variety of statutes and regulations. These laws require approval of manufacturing facilities, controlled research and testing of products and government review and approval of a submission containing manufacturing, preclinical and clinical data in order to obtain marketing approval based on establishing the safety and efficacy of the product for each use sought, including adherence to current cGMP during production and storage, and control of marketing activities, including advertising and labeling.

VAL-083 and any other products we may develop will require significant development, preclinical and clinical testing and investment of substantial funds prior to its commercialization. The process of obtaining required approvals can be costly and time-consuming, and there can be no assurance that we will successfully develop any future products that will prove to be safe and effective in clinical studies or receive applicable regulatory approvals. Markets other than the U.S. and Canada have similar restrictions. Potential investors and shareholders should be aware of the risks, problems, delays, expenses and difficulties which we may encounter in view of the extensive regulatory environment which controls our business.

We may request priority review for our product candidate in the future. The FDA may not grant priority review for our product candidate. Moreover, even if the FDA designated such product for priority review, that designation may not lead to a faster regulatory review or approval process and, in any event, would not assure FDA approval.

We may be eligible for priority review designation for our product candidate if the FDA determines such product candidate offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Thus, while the FDA has granted priority review to other oncology disease products, our product candidate, should we determine to seek priority review, may not receive similar designation. Moreover, even if our product candidate is designated for priority review, such a designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within an accelerated timeline or thereafter.

We believe we may in some instances be able to secure approval from the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities to use accelerated development pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical studies beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals.

We anticipate that we may seek an accelerated approval pathway for our product candidate. Under the accelerated approval provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and the FDA’s implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug.

Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we will seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can also be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit a New Drug Application (“NDA”), for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback that we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or under another expedited regulatory designation (e.g., breakthrough therapy designation), there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or other non-U.S. authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for any of our product candidates that we determine to seek accelerated approval for would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

We have conducted, and may in the future conduct, clinical studies for certain of our product candidates at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from studies conducted in such locations.

We have conducted and may in the future choose to conduct one or more of our clinical studies outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical studies conducted outside the United States, acceptance of this data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical study must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The study population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. Generally, the patient population for any clinical studies conducted outside of the United States must be representative of the population for whom we intend to seek approval in the United States. In addition, while these clinical studies are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the studies also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from studies conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any of our clinical studies that we determine to conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional studies, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of the product candidate.

In addition, the conduct of clinical studies outside the United States could have a significant impact on us. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical studies include:

If our clinical studies fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulators, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidate.

We are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, impose similar restrictions. We may never receive such approvals. We must complete extensive preclinical development and clinical studies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidate in humans before we will be able to obtain these approvals.

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is inherently uncertain as to outcome. We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for any product candidate.

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us and impair our ability to generate revenues from product sales, regulatory and commercialization milestones and royalties. In addition, if (1) we are required to conduct additional clinical studies or other testing of our product candidate beyond the studies and testing that we contemplate, (2) we are unable to successfully complete clinical studies of our product candidate or other testing, (3) the results of these studies or tests are unfavorable, uncertain or are only modestly favorable, or (4) there are unacceptable safety concerns associated with our product candidate, we, in addition to incurring additional costs, may:

If we experience any of a number of possible unforeseen events in connection with clinical studies of our product candidates, potential marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical studies that could delay or prevent marketing approval of our product candidate, including:

Product development costs for us will increase if we experience delays in testing or pursuing marketing approvals and we may be required to obtain additional funds to complete clinical studies and prepare for possible commercialization of our product candidate. We do not know whether any preclinical tests or clinical studies will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical study delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidate or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidate and may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, clinical study delays may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of our product candidate.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical studies, we may not achieve our clinical development on our anticipated timeline, or at all, and our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical studies for VAL-083 or any other product candidate if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in clinical studies. Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical studies, and is affected by many factors, including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical studies could result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical studies altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical studies may result in increased development costs for our product candidate, delay or halt the development of and approval processes for our product candidate and jeopardize our ability to achieve our clinical development timeline and goals, including the dates by which we will commence, complete and receive results from clinical studies. Enrollment delays may also delay or jeopardize our ability to commence sales and generate revenues from our product candidate. Any of the foregoing could cause our value to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing, if needed.

Positive results in previous clinical studies of VAL-083 may not be replicated in future clinical studies, which could result in development delays or a failure to obtain marketing approval.

Positive results in previous clinical studies of VAL-083 may not be predictive of similar results in future clinical studies. Also, interim results during a clinical study do not necessarily predict final results. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical studies even after achieving promising results in early-stage development. Accordingly, the results from the completed preclinical studies and clinical studies for VAL-083 may not be predictive of the results we may obtain in later stage studies. Our clinical studies may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical studies. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical studies have nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or EMA, or other regulatory agency, approval for their products.

FDA approval of VAL-083 or future product candidates may be denied.

There can be no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve our NDA. The FDA may deny approval of VAL-083 for many reasons, including:

We expect to rely on orphan drug status to develop and commercialize our product candidate, but our orphan drug designations may not confer marketing exclusivity or other expected commercial benefits as anticipated.

Market exclusivity afforded by orphan drug designation is generally offered as an incentive to drug developers to invest in developing and commercializing products for unique diseases that impact a limited number of patients. The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Qualification to maintain orphan drug status is generally monitored by the regulatory authorities during the orphan drug exclusivity period, currently seven years from the date of approval in the United States.

We have been granted orphan drug designation in the United States for GBM, ovarian cancer, and medulloblastoma, and in Europe for GBM. We expect to rely on orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidate. It is possible that the incidence and prevalence numbers for GBM could change. Should the incidence and prevalence of GBM patients materially increase, it is possible that the orphan drug designation, and related market exclusivity, in the United States could be lost. Further, while we have been granted this orphan designation, the FDA can still approve different drugs for use in treating the same indication or disease, which would create a more competitive market for us and our revenues will be diminished.

Further, it is possible that another company also holding orphan drug designation for the same product candidate will receive marketing approval for the same indication before we do. If that were to happen, our applications for that indication may not be approved until the competing company’s period of exclusivity expires. Even if we are the first to obtain marketing authorization for an orphan drug indication, there are circumstances under which a competing product may be approved for the same indication during the seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, such as if the later product is shown to be clinically superior to the orphan product, or if the later product is deemed a different product than ours. Further, the seven-year marketing exclusivity would not prevent competitors from obtaining approval of the same product candidate as ours for indications other than those in which we have been granted orphan drug designation, or for the use of other types of products in the same indications as our orphan product.

If the market opportunities for our product candidate are smaller than we believe they are, our revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer. Because the target patient populations of our product candidate are small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and capture a significant market share to achieve and maintain profitability.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for orphan cancer indications. Our projections of both the number of people who have failed other therapies or have limited medical options, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence. The number of patients in the United States, Europe and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected or may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Additionally, because our target patient populations are small, we will be required to capture a significant market share to achieve and maintain profitability.

We may be required to suspend or discontinue clinical studies due to unexpected side effects or other safety risks that could preclude approval of our products.

Our clinical studies may be suspended at any time for a number of reasons. For example, we may voluntarily suspend or terminate our clinical studies if at any time we believe that they present an unacceptable risk to the clinical study patients. In addition, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of our clinical studies at any time if they believe that the clinical studies are not being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements or that they present an unacceptable safety risk to the clinical study patients.

Administering any product candidate to humans may produce undesirable side effects. These side effects could interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies of our product candidates and could result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying further development or approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Ultimately, some or all of our product candidates may prove to be unsafe for human use. Moreover, we could be subject to significant liability if any volunteer or patient suffers, or appears to suffer, adverse health effects or even death as a result of participating in our clinical studies.

We may not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidate or there may be a delay in obtaining such approvals.

Our product and our ongoing development activities are subject to regulation by regulatory authorities in the countries in which we or our collaborators and distributors wish to test, manufacture or market our products. For instance, the FDA will regulate the product in the U.S. and equivalent authorities, such as the EMA, will regulate in Europe. Regulatory approval by these authorities will be subject to the evaluation of data relating to the quality, efficacy and safety of the product for its proposed use, and there can be no assurance that the regulatory authorities will find our data sufficient to support product approval of VAL-083 or any future product candidates.

The time required to obtain regulatory approval varies between countries. The FDA is required to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Filling an unmet medical need is defined as providing a therapy where none exists or providing a therapy that may be potentially better than available therapy. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug or biologic candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a fast track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND for the product candidate. The FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days after receipt of the sponsor’s request. In the U.S., for products without “Fast Track” status, it can take over eighteen (18) months after submission of an application for product approval to receive the FDA's decision. Even with Fast Track status, FDA review and decision can take over twelve (12) months. At present, we do not have Fast Track status for VAL-083.

Different regulators may impose their own requirements and may refuse to grant, or may require additional data before granting, an approval, notwithstanding that regulatory approval may have been granted by other regulators. Regulatory approval may be delayed, limited or denied for a number of reasons, including insufficient clinical data, the product not meeting safety or efficacy requirements or any relevant manufacturing processes or facilities not meeting applicable requirements as well as case load at the regulatory agency at the time.

We may fail to comply with regulatory requirements.

Our success will be dependent upon our ability, and our collaborative partners’ abilities, to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements, including cGMP, and safety reporting obligations. The failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in, among other things, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, total or partial suspension of regulatory approvals, refusal to approve pending applications, recalls or seizures of products, operating and production restrictions and criminal prosecutions.

Even if our product candidate receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success and the market opportunity for the product candidate may be smaller than we estimate.

We have never commercialized a product. Even if VAL-083 or any other product candidate is approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities for marketing and sale, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, physicians are often reluctant to switch their patients from existing therapies even when new and potentially more effective or convenient treatments enter the market. Further, patients often acclimate to the therapy that they are currently taking and do not want to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or they are required to switch therapies due to lack of reimbursement for existing therapies.

Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidate may require significant resources and may not be successful. If our product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of market acceptance, we may not generate significant revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of VAL-083 or any other product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

The potential market opportunities for our product candidate are difficult to estimate precisely. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities are predicated on many assumptions, including industry knowledge and publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, these assumptions involve the exercise of significant judgment on the part of our management, are inherently uncertain and the reasonableness of these assumptions has not been assessed by an independent source. If any of the assumptions proves to be inaccurate, the actual markets for our product candidate could be smaller than our estimates of the potential market opportunities.

If our product candidate receives marketing approval and we, or others, later discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, our ability to market the drug could be compromised.

Clinical studies of our product candidate are conducted in carefully defined subsets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical studies. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical studies may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. If, following approval of our product candidate, we, or others, discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, any of the following adverse events could occur:

Any of these events could have a material and adverse effect on our operations and business and could adversely impact our stock price.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, qualification testing, post-approval clinical data, labeling and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual and additional requirements of the FDA and other regulatory authorities.

These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information, reports, registration and listing requirements, good manufacturing practices, or GMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of our product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products to ensure such products are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may lead to various adverse results, including:

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into acceptable sales, marketing and distribution arrangements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing any product candidates that we develop, if and when those product candidates are approved.

We do not have a sales, marketing or distribution infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization, outsource these functions to third parties, or license our product candidates to others. If approved, we may seek to license VAL-083 to a large pharmaceutical company with greater resources and experience than us. We may not be able license the VAL-083 on reasonable terms, if at all. The development of sales, marketing and distribution capabilities will require substantial resources, will be time-consuming and could delay any product launch. We expect that we will commence the development of these capabilities prior to receiving approval of our product candidate. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and distribution capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we could have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization costs. Such a delay may be costly, and our investment could be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In addition, we may not be able to hire or retain a sales force in the United States that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we plan to target. If we are unable to establish or retain a sales force and marketing and distribution capabilities, our operating results may be adversely affected. If a potential partner has development or commercialization expertise that we believe is particularly relevant to our product candidate, then we may seek to collaborate with that potential partner even if we believe we could otherwise develop and commercialize the product independently.

We expect to seek one or more strategic partners for commercialization of our product candidate outside the United States. As a result of entering into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues may be lower, perhaps substantially lower, than if we were to directly market and sell products in those markets. Furthermore, we may be unsuccessful in entering into the necessary arrangements with third parties or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, we may have little or no control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively.

If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidate.

We face substantial competition from other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and our operating results may suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We expect that we will face significant competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide with respect to VAL-083 and any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. Specifically, due to the large unmet medical need, global demographics and relatively attractive reimbursement dynamics, the oncology market is fiercely competitive and there are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of cancer. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing technologies and drug products that are more effective, have fewer or more tolerable side effects or are less costly than any product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop, which could render our product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive.

All of the top ten global pharmaceutical companies and many of the mid-size pharmaceutical companies have a strong research and development and commercial presence in oncology. Smaller companies also focus on oncology, including companies such as ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BIND Therapeutics, Inc., Clovis Oncology, Inc., Endocyte, Inc., Epizyme, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., Incyte Corporation, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MacroGenics, Inc., Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc., OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Onconova Therapeutics, Inc., Pharmacyclics, Inc., Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Seattle Genetics, Inc. and TESARO, Inc.

Several companies are marketing and developing oncology immunotherapy products. Companies with approved marketed oncology products for GBM are Merck (Temodar^®) and Genentech (Avastin®). Companies with oncology immunotherapy product candidates in clinical development include, but are not limited to, Northwest Biotherapeutics (DCVax-L), Celldex Therapeutics (Rindopepimut (CDX-110)) and ImmunoCellular Therapeutics (ICT-107).

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other marketing approval for their products before we are able to obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Many of our existing and potential future competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical studies, obtaining marketing approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

If we are unable to or delayed in obtaining state regulatory licenses for the distribution of our product, we would not be able to sell our product candidate.

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

We rely on key personnel and, if we are unable to retain or motivate key personnel or hire qualified personnel, we may not be able to grow effectively.

We are dependent on certain members of our management, scientific and drug development staff and consultants, the loss of services of one or more of whom could materially adversely affect us.

We currently have four full-time employees, and retain the services of approximately 15 persons on an independent contractor/consultant and contract-employment basis. Our ability to manage growth effectively will require us to continue to implement and improve our management systems and to recruit and train new employees. Although we have done so in the past and expect to do so in the future, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully attract and retain skilled and experienced personnel.

Our success depends in large part upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel. We compete in our hiring efforts with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as universities and nonprofit research organizations, and we may have to pay higher salaries to attract and retain personnel, which would be very costly.

We may be subject to foreign exchange fluctuation.

Our functional and reporting currency is the United States dollar. We maintain bank accounts in United States and Canadian dollars. A portion of our expenditures are in foreign currencies, most notably in Canadian dollars, and therefore we are subject to foreign currency fluctuations, which may, from time to time, impact our financial position and results. We may enter into hedging arrangements under specific circumstances, typically through the use of forward or futures currency contracts, to minimize the impact of increases in the value of the Canadian dollar. In order to minimize our exposure to foreign exchange fluctuations we may hold sufficient Canadian dollars to cover our expected Canadian dollar expenditures.

Product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources, cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability claims as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidate despite obtaining appropriate informed consents from our clinical study participants. We will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any product that we may develop. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidate. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain general liability insurance, this insurance may not fully cover potential liabilities that we may incur. The cost of any product liability litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. We will need to increase our insurance coverage if and when we begin selling any product candidate that receives marketing approval. In addition, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, it could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our product candidate, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct clinical studies for our product candidate. Any failure by a third-party to meet its obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidate may delay or impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidate.

We rely on academic institutions and private oncology centers to conduct our clinical studies. Our reliance on third parties to conduct clinical studies could, depending on the actions of such third parties, jeopardize the validity of the clinical data generated and adversely affect our ability to obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities.

Such clinical study arrangements provide us with information rights with respect to the clinical data, including access to and the ability to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory filings, resulting from the clinical studies. If investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical studies of our product candidate, or if the data proves to be inadequate, then our ability to design and conduct any future clinical studies may be adversely affected.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical studies, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such studies.

We currently rely on third-party clinical research organizations, or CROs, to conduct our clinical studies. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our clinical studies. Our agreements with these third parties generally allow the third-party to terminate the agreement at any time. If we are required to enter into alternative arrangements because of any such termination the introduction of our product candidates to market could be delayed.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we design our clinical studies and will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical studies are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the study. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical studies to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of study participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. We also are required to register ongoing clinical studies and post the results of completed clinical studies on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

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

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

We may seek to enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our product candidate. If we fail to enter into such collaborations, or such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of our product candidate.

We may seek third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of our product candidate. Our likely collaborators for any marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and biotechnology companies. We are currently party to a limited number of such arrangements and have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidate. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Collaborations involving our product candidate currently pose, and will continue to pose, the following risks to us:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of our product candidate in the most efficient manner or at all. If a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated.

If we are not able to establish collaborations, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidate will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of our product candidate.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of preclinical studies or clinical studies, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of our product candidate, reduce or delay its development program, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidate or bring it to market and generate product revenue.

We currently manufacture our clinical supplies at a single location. Any disruption at this facility could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We have engaged a single manufacturer to produce GMP active pharmaceutical ingredient and drug product for our clinical studies. In addition, we have relied on our manufacturing partner, Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company, for the manufacture of clinical supply of VAL-083 for our preclinical and Phase 2 clinical studies to-date. If our manufacturer’s facility were damaged or destroyed, or otherwise subject to disruption, it would require substantial lead-time to replace our clinical supply. In such event, we would be forced to rely entirely on other third-party contract manufacturers for an indefinite period of time. We not recently established a relationship with a back-up manufacturer. At this time no drug product has been manufactured by a third-party back-up manufacturer. Any disruptions or delays by our third-party manufacturers or Guangxi Wuzhou Pharmaceutical Company or their failure to meet regulatory compliance could impair our ability to develop VAL-083, which would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We rely on these third-party manufacturers to provide drug product supply for our clinical studies. There is no assurance that such a supplier will be able to meet our needs from a technical, timing, or cost-effective manner. Our failure to enter into appropriate agreements with such a third-party manufacturer would delay, or halt, our clinical studies.

We may become subject to liabilities related to risks inherent in working with hazardous materials.

Our discovery and development processes involve the controlled use of hazardous and radioactive materials. We are subject to federal, provincial and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of such materials and certain waste products. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by such laws and regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources. We are not specifically insured with respect to this liability. Although we believe that we are in compliance in all material respects with applicable environmental laws and regulations and currently do not expect to make material capital expenditures for environmental control facilities in the near-term, there can be no assurance that we will not be required to incur significant costs to comply with environmental laws and regulations in the future, or that our operations, business or assets will not be materially adversely affected by current or future environmental laws or regulations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock is, and is likely to continue to be, highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations.

The market price of our common stock is highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a number of factors that are beyond our control, including:

Because we became public by means of a reverse acquisition, we may not be able to attract, or maintain, the attention of brokerage firms.

Because we became public through a “reverse acquisition”, securities analysts of brokerage firms may not provide or continue to provide coverage of us since there is little incentive to brokerage firms to recommend the purchase of our common stock. No assurance can be given that brokerage firms will want to conduct any follow-on offerings on behalf of us in the future.

Voting power of our shareholders is highly concentrated by insiders.

Our officers, directors, and 5% shareholders control, either directly or indirectly, a substantial portion of our voting securities. Therefore, our management may significantly affect the outcome of all corporate actions and decisions for an indefinite period of time including election of directors, amendment of charter documents and approval of mergers and other significant corporate transactions.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future.

We have paid no dividends on our common stock to date and we do not anticipate paying any dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future. While our future dividend policy will be based on the operating results and capital needs of the business, we currently anticipate that any earnings will be retained to finance our future expansion and for the implementation of our business plan. Investors should take note of the fact that a lack of a dividend can further affect the market value of our common stock, and could significantly affect the value of any investment in us.

Our articles of incorporation allow for our board to create new series of preferred stock without further approval by our stockholders, which could adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock.

Our Board of Directors has the authority to fix and determine the relative rights and preferences of preferred stock. Our Board of Directors has the authority to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock (of which 1 share has been designated Special Voting Preferred Stock and is issued and outstanding, 278,530 shares have been designated Series A Preferred Stock and are issued and outstanding, and 1,000,000 shares have been designated as Series B Preferred Stock, of which 881,113 shares are issued and outstanding) without further stockholder approval. As a result, our Board of Directors could authorize the issuance of additional series of preferred stock that would grant to holders the preferred right to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividend payments before dividends are distributed to the holders of common stock and the right to the redemption of the shares, together with a premium, prior to the redemption of our common stock. In addition, our Board of Directors could authorize the issuance of a series of preferred stock that has greater voting power than our common stock or that is convertible into our common stock, which could decrease the relative voting power of our common stock or result in dilution to our existing stockholders. Although we have no present intention to issue any additional shares of preferred stock or to create any additional series of preferred stock, we may issue such shares in the future.

Our issuance of common stock upon exercise of warrants, Performance Share Units, or options, exchange of Exchangeable Shares, or conversion of Series B Preferred Stock may depress the price of our common stock.

As of September 21, 2018, we had 22,409,053 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, 562,761 shares of common stock issuable upon exchange of the Exchangeable Shares of Exchangeco (which entitle the holder to require Exchangeco to redeem (or, at the option of us or Callco, to have us or Callco purchase) the Exchangeable Shares, and upon such redemption or purchase to receive an equal number of shares of our common stock) (the Exchangeable Shares are recognized on an as-exchanged for common stock basis for financial statement purposes), outstanding warrants to purchase 14,237,525 shares of common stock, outstanding Series B convertible preferred shares that are convertible into 2,202,792 shares of common stock, outstanding Performance Stock Units (“PSUs”) that are convertible into 1,200,000 shares of common stock, and outstanding options to purchase 2,626,829 shares of common stock. All Exchangeable Shares, warrants, and options are convertible or exercisable into one share of common stock. Each share of Series B preferred stock is convertible into 2.5 shares of common stock. The issuance of shares of common stock upon exercise of outstanding warrants or options or exchange of Exchangeable Shares could result in substantial dilution to our stockholders, which may have a negative effect on the price of our common stock.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may be “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements that express our intentions, beliefs, expectations, strategies, predictions or any other statements relating to our future activities or other future events or conditions. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our business based, in part, on assumptions made by management. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may, and are likely to, differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in the forward-looking statements due to numerous factors, including those described above under “Risk Factors,” and under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this report and in other documents which we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, such statements could be affected by risks and uncertainties related to our ability to raise any financing which we may require for our operations, competition, government regulations and requirements, pricing and development difficulties, our ability to make acquisitions and successfully integrate those acquisitions with our business, as well as general industry and market conditions and growth rates, and general economic conditions. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not required for a smaller reporting company.

Item 2. Properties.

Our corporate headquarters are located at Suite 720-999 West Broadway, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 1K5. Our clinical operations are managed at 3475 Edison Way, Suite R, Menlo Park, California, 94025. Our current monthly base rent for our corporate headquarters is $4,708 (CDN $6,200) on a month-to-month basis. In addition, Valent Technologies, LLC (“Valent”), which is owned by Dr. Dennis Brown, our Chief Scientific Officer, leases facilities in California and we have access to such facilities pursuant to an informal unwritten arrangement with Valent. Our leased premises, academic relationships, and access to the Valent facility are sufficient to meet the immediate needs of our business, research and operations.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

There are no legal proceedings to which we are a party or any of our property is the subject.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable. 

PART II

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

Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market, under the symbol “DMPI” effective July 12, 2016. Previously, our common stock was quoted on the OTC.QX, and prior to that, on the OTCQB.

The following table contains information about the range of high and low sale prices for our common stock for each quarter during the last two fiscal years. The source of these high and low sales prices was the Nasdaq Capital Market and the OTC.QX.

As of September 17, 2018, there were approximately 233 holders of record of our common stock.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain future earnings, if any, to finance the expansion of our business. As a result, we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Sales of Unregistered Securities

During the three months ended June 30, 2018, we issued 4,556 shares of common stock in relation to services received by us and 49,602 shares of common stock as dividends on our outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock.

In connection with the foregoing, we relied upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for transactions not involving a public offering.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Not required for a smaller reporting company.

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

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

This Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) contains “forward-looking statements”, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which represent our projections, estimates, expectations, or beliefs concerning, among other things, financial items that relate to management’s future plans or objectives or to our future economic and financial performance. In some cases, you can identify these statements by terminology such as “may”, “should”, “plans”, “believe”, “will”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “expect” “project”, or “intend”, including their opposites or similar phrases or expressions. You should be aware that these statements are projections or estimates as to future events and are subject to a number of factors that may tend to influence the accuracy of the statements. These forward-looking statements should not be regarded as a representation by the Company or any other person that the events or plans of the Company will be achieved. You should not unduly rely on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report. Except as may be required under applicable securities laws, we undertake no obligation to publicly revise any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events after the date of this report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

You should review the factors and risks we describe under “Risk Factors” in this report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2018 and in the Company’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, available at www.sec.gov. Actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statement.

Corporate History

We are a Nevada corporation formed on June 24, 2009 under the name Berry Only, Inc. Prior to a reverse acquisition undertaken on January 25, 2013 Berry did not have any significant assets or operations. The Company is the parent company of Del Mar Pharmaceuticals (BC) Ltd. (“Del Mar (BC)”), a British Columbia, Canada corporation incorporated on April 6, 2010, that is focused on the development of drugs for the treatment of cancer. The Company is also the parent company to 0959454 B.C. Ltd., a British Columbia corporation (“Callco”), and 0959456 B.C. Ltd., a British Columbia corporation (“Exchangeco”). Callco and Exchangeco were formed to facilitate the reverse acquisition.

References to the Company, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Del Mar (BC), Callco and Exchangeco.

Outstanding Securities

As of September 21, 2018, the Company had 22,409,053 shares of common stock issued and outstanding,562,761 shares of common stock issuable upon exchange of the Exchangeable Shares of Exchangeco (which entitle the holder to require Exchangeco to redeem (or, at the option of the Company or Callco, to have the Company or Callco purchase) the Exchangeable Shares, and upon such redemption or purchase to receive an equal number of shares of common stock of the Company) (the Exchangeable Shares are recognized on an as-exchanged for common stock basis for financial statement purposes), outstanding warrants to purchase 14,237,525 shares of common stock, 881,113 outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock that are convertible into 2,202,792 shares of common stock, outstanding stock options to purchase 2,626,829 shares of common stock, and 1,200,000 PSU’s. All Exchangeable Shares, warrants, stock options, and PSU’s are convertible, or exercisable into, one share of common stock. Each Series B convertible preferred share is convertible into 2.5 shares of common stock.

Related Parties

The Company acquired its initial patents and technology rights from Valent, an entity owned by Dr. Dennis Brown, the Company’s Chief Scientific Officer. As a result, Valent is a related party to the Company. 

During the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company recognized a total of $311,683 relating to the settlement agreement with the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer. Amounts owed to related parties, including to the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer, are non-interest bearing and payable on demand.

Derivative Liability

The Company has issued common stock purchase warrants. Based on the terms of certain of these warrants the Company determined that the warrants were a derivative liability which is recognized at fair value at the date of the transaction and re-measured at fair value each reporting period with the changes in fair value recorded in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss.

2013 Investor Warrants

During the quarter ended March 31, 2013 the Company issued an aggregate of 3,281,250 units at a purchase price of $3.20 per unit, for aggregate gross proceeds of $10,500,000. Each unit consisted of one share of common stock and one five-year warrant (the “2013 Investor Warrants”) to purchase one share of common stock at an initial exercise price of $3.20. The exercise price of the 2013 Investor Warrants is subject to adjustment in the event that the Company issues common stock at a price lower than the exercise price, subject to certain exceptions. The 2013 Investor Warrants are redeemable by the Company at a price of $0.004 per 2013 Investor Warrant at any time subject to the conditions that (i) the Company’s common stock has traded for twenty (20) consecutive trading days with a closing price of at least $6.40 per share with an average trading volume of 50,000 shares per day, and (ii) the underlying shares of common stock are registered for resale.

As a result of the financing completed by the Company during the three months ended September 30, 2015, the exercise price of all of the 2013 Investor Warrants was reduced from $3.20 to $3.14. As a result of the financing completed by the Company during the three months ended September 30, 2017, the exercise price of certain of the 2013 Investor Warrants was further reduced from $3.14 to $2.68. The change in exercise price did not result in a material change in the fair value of the derivative liability. All of the 2013 Investor Warrants giving rise to their respective portion of the derivative liability have expired as of June 30, 2018.

2013 Investor Warrant exercises

During the year ended June 30, 2017, 60,095 of the 2013 Investor Warrants were exercised at an exercise price of $3.14 per share. Also, 5,000 of the previously amended 2013 Investor Warrants were exercised. The Company received proceeds of $204,659 from these exercises. The warrants that have been exercised were revalued at their respective exercise dates and then the reclassification to equity was recorded resulting in $238,474 of the derivative liability being reclassified to equity.

There were no exercises of 2013 Investor Warrants during the year ended June 30, 2018.

2013 Investor Warrant amendments

During the year ended June 30, 2017, 15,944 of the 2013 Investor Warrants were amended. As a result, the Company has reclassified $53,006 from the derivative liability to equity. The 2013 Investor Warrants were revalued to their respective amendment dates and were then reclassified to equity.

There were no amendments of 2013 Investor Warrants during the year ended June 30, 2018.

2015 Agent Warrants

As part of the Company’s financing completed in a prior period, the Company issued warrants to purchase 23,477 shares of common stock to certain placement agents (“2015 Agent Warrants”) and recognized them as a derivative liability of $29,594 at the time of issuance. The 2015 Agent Warrants are exercisable at a per share price equal to $3.00 until July 15, 2020. During the year ended June 30, 2017, 680 of the 2015 Agent Warrants were exercised for cash proceeds of $2,040 and 1,000 of the 2015 Agent Warrants were exercised on a cashless basis for 594 shares of common stock. The total reclassification to equity subsequent to revaluation at the respective exercise dates was $9,935.

There were no exercises of the 2015 Agent Warrants during the year ended June 30, 2018.

The Company’s derivative liability is summarized as follows:

The derivative liability consists of the following warrants as at June 30, 2018 and 2017:

Selected Annual Information

The financial information reported herein has been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The Company’s functional currency at June 30, 2018 is the US$. The following tables represent selected financial information for the Company for the periods presented.

Selected Balance Sheet Data 

Selected Statement of operations data

For the years ended:

Expenses net of non-cash, share-based compensation expense

The following table discloses research and development, and general and administrative expenses net of non-cash, share-based compensation expenses.

For the years ended:

Results of Operations

Comparison of the years ended June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2017

Research and Development

Research and development expenses increased to $7,132,952 for the year ended June 30, 2018 from $5,003,640 for the year ended June 30, 2017. The increase was largely attributable to an increase in clinical development, personnel, and preclinical research partially offset by lower travel costs. Non-cash, share-based compensation expense for the year ended June 30, 2018 was $149,452 related to stock option expense and shares issued for services while non-cash, share-based compensation expense for the year ended June 30, 2017 was $102,828 for stock option expense and warrants issued for services.

Excluding the impact of non-cash, share-based compensation expense, research and development expenses increased to $6,983,500 during the current year from $4,900,812 for the prior year. The increase in clinical development costs for the year ended June 30, 2018 compared to the year ended June 30, 2017 was partially due to manufacturing costs for GMP material as well as ongoing trial costs for the Company’s two Phase 2, biomarker-driven, MGMT-unmethylated, GBM studies. At June 30, 2017, the Company’s Phase 2 study in Avastin-naïve unmethylated GBM patients being conducted at the MD Anderson Cancer Center had commenced in February 2017 so patient enrollment had just begun. Also, in the prior year, enrollment in the Company’s Phase 2 study in newly diagnosed unmethylated GBM patients in China had not yet started enrollment.

During the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company undertook site initiation and enrollment for its now-parked STAR-3, Phase 3 study in GBM. During the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company recognized certain costs relating to the parking of the trial. As the Company’s two Phase 2, biomarker-driven studies are partially supported through collaboration arrangements, the ongoing clinical costs for these two studies will be lower than the overall clinical costs incurred by the Company for the year ended June 30, 2018.

Personnel costs increased during the current year compared to the prior year primarily due to amounts recognized for payments made to the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Company and such individual. Preclinical research increased in the year ended June 30, 2018 compared to the year ended June 30, 2017 largely due to the Company’s research agreement with Duke University which commenced in April 2017 as well as due to an increase in the ongoing mechanism of action research that the Company has undertaken in the current year. Travel costs have decreased in the year ended June 30, 2018 compared to the year ended June 30, 2017 as the Company has focused on reducing all but essential travel.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expenses were $4,041,711 for the year ended June 30, 2018 compared to $3,317,189 for the year ended June 30, 2017. The increase was primarily due to an increase in professional fees and personnel costs. In relation to general and administrative expenses during the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company incurred non-cash, share-based compensation expense of $596,079 relating to warrants issued for services, stock option expense, and the PSUs while during the year ended June 30, 2017, the Company incurred non-cash, share-based compensation expense of $667,521 relating to shares and warrants issued for services, and stock option expense.

Excluding the impact of non-cash, share-based compensation expense, general and administrative expenses increased in the year ended June 30, 2018 to $3,445,632 from $2,649,668 for the year ended June 30, 2017. Professional fees incurred during the year ended June 30, 2018 relate to various matters including preparation for the Company’s first annual meeting of stockholders which was held April 11, 2018, completing the Company’s 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan, regulatory filings, and corporate governance matters. In the year ended June 30, 2017, the costs were incurred related to preparing for the Company’s uplisting of its common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market as well as fees associated with one-time listing activities, and the filing of three registration statements with the SEC that were all declared effective in September 2016. Personnel costs increased during the current year compared to the prior year primarily due to amounts recognized for payments made to the Company’s former President and Chief Operating Officer pursuant to the settlement agreement.

Change in fair value of stock option and derivative liabilities

Based on the terms of certain warrants issued by the Company, the Company determined that such warrants were a derivative liability which is recognized at fair value at the date of the transaction and re-measured at fair value every reporting period with gains or losses on the changes in fair value recorded in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. The gains recognized during the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 were primarily due to changes in the Company’s common stock price between June 30, 2017 and 2016 respectively and June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

The Company recognized a gain of $60,111 from the change in fair value of the derivative liability for the year ended June 30, 2018 and a gain of $331,057 for the year ended June 30, 2017.

Changes in the Company’s common stock price can result in significant volatility in the Company’s reported net loss due to its impact on the fair value of the derivative liability. As a result of revaluation gains and losses, the Company expects that its reported net income or loss will continue to fluctuate significantly.

Certain of the Company’s stock options have been issued in $CA. Of these, a portion were classified as a stock option liability which is revalued at each reporting date. During the year ended June 30, 2017, the Company amended 43,750 of these stock options held by five optionees such that the exercise price of the options was adjusted to be denominated in $USD. No other terms of the stock options were amended. As a result of the amendment, the Company recognized $85,094 in stock option liability expense and $260,969 was reclassified to equity during the year ended June 30, 2017.

Foreign Exchange

The Company’s functional currency at June 30, 2018 was the US$, but the Company incurs a portion of its expenses in CA$. The foreign exchange gains and losses are reported in other loss (income) in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss.

The Company recognized foreign exchange losses of $57,003 and $7,355 for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The losses were due to changes in the exchange rate between the CA$ and the US$ and to varying levels of CA$ cash and accounts payable.

Preferred Share Dividends

For each of the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company recognized $8,356 related to the dividend payable to Valent on the Series A preferred stock. The dividend has been recorded as a direct increase in accumulated deficit for both periods.

The Company issued 198,408 (2017 – 200,446) shares of common stock on June 30, 2018 as a dividend on the Series B Preferred stock and recognized $176,236 (2017 - $790,454) as a direct increase in accumulated deficit.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Comparison of the years ended June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2017

Operating activities

Net cash used in operating activities increased to $9,850,850 for the year ended June 30, 2018 from $8,019,071 for the year ended June 30, 2017. During the year ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company reported net losses of $11,138,312 and $8,081,764, respectively. During the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded a gain from the revaluation of the derivative and stock option liabilities of $60,111 compared to a gain of $245,963 for the year ended June 30, 2017. Excluding the impact of changes in the fair value of the derivative and stock option liabilities, non-cash items relating to amortization of intangible assets, shares and warrants issued for services, and PSU and stock option expense totaled $770,059 for the year ended June 30, 2018. Non-cash items relating to amortization of intangible assets, shares and warrants issued for services, and stock option expense totaled $787,032 for the year ended June 30, 2017. The most significant changes in non-cash working capital for the year ended June 30, 2018 was from an inflow due to increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $295,774 and from an inflow due to a decrease in prepaid expenses and deposits of $173,192. The most significant changes in non-cash working capital for the year ended June 30, 2017 was from an outflow from an increase in prepaid expenses and deposits of $1,063,991 and from an inflow due to an increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $598,310.

As of June 30, 2018, we had cash and cash equivalents to fund operations into the middle of calendar 2019. We will need to raise additional capital in the near future.

Investing activities

During the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company incurred $12,649 and $20,956, respectively, in relation to the development of its website.

Financing activities

During the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company received $8,945,336 in net proceeds from the completion of a registered direct offering by the Company of common stock and common stock purchase warrants. During the year ended June 30, 2017, the Company received $7,932,107 in net proceeds from a public offering of its common stock and common stock purchase warrants. 

During the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company received $312,500 and $545,026, respectively, from the exercise of warrants. In addition, the Company recognized $8,356 related to the dividend payable to Valent during each of the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Going Concern and Capital Expenditure Requirements

Going Concern

(See note 1 to the consolidated financial statements)

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis which assumes that the Company will continue its operations for the foreseeable future and contemplates the realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business.

For the year ended June 30, 2018, the Company reported a loss of $11,138,312 and negative cash flow from operations of $9,850,850. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $52,441,337 and cash and cash equivalents on hand of $5,971,995. The Company is in the development stage and has not generated any revenues to date. The Company does not have the prospect of achieving revenues until such time that its product candidate is commercialized, or partnered, which may not ever occur. In the near future, the Company will require additional funding to maintain its clinical trials, research and development projects, and for general operations. These circumstances indicate substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Consequently, management is pursuing various financing alternatives to fund the Company’s operations so it can continue as a going concern. Management plans to secure the necessary financing through the issue of new equity and/or the entering into of strategic partnership arrangements. The Company may tailor its drug candidate development program based on the amount of funding the Company is able to raise in the future. Nevertheless, there is no assurance that these initiatives will be successful.

The financial statements do not give effect to any adjustments to the amounts and classification of assets and liabilities that may be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern. Such adjustments could be material.

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

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance future cash needs primarily through public or private equity offerings, or strategic collaborations. The sale of equity and convertible debt securities may result in dilution to our stockholders and certain of those securities may have rights senior to those of our shares of capital stock. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of preferred stock, convertible debt securities or other debt financing, these securities or other debt could contain covenants that would restrict our operations. Any other third-party funding arrangement could require us to relinquish valuable rights. Economic conditions may affect the availability of funds and activity in equity markets. We do not know whether additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are not able to secure additional funding when needed, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our clinical trials or research and development programs or make changes to our operating plan. In addition, we may have to seek a partner for one or more of our product candidate programs at an earlier stage of development, which would lower the economic value of those programs to us.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, requires companies to establish accounting policies and to make estimates that affect both the amount and timing of the recording of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. Some of these estimates require judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and therefore actual results may differ from those estimates.

A detailed presentation of all of the Company’s significant accounting policies and the estimates derived there from is included in Note 2 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2018 contained elsewhere in this report on Form 10-K. While all of the significant accounting policies are important to the Company’s consolidated financial statements, the following accounting policies and the estimates derived therefrom are critical:

Warrants and shares issued for services

The Company has issued equity instruments for services provided by employees and nonemployees. The equity instruments are valued at the fair value of the instrument granted.

Stock options

The Company accounts for these awards under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 718, “Compensation - Stock Compensation” (“ASC 718”). ASC 718 requires measurement of compensation cost for all stock-based awards at fair value on the date of grant and recognition of compensation over the requisite service period for awards expected to vest. Compensation expense for unvested options to non-employees is revalued at each period end and is being amortized over the vesting period of the options. The determination of grant-date fair value for stock option awards is estimated using the Black-Scholes model, which includes variables such as the expected volatility of the Company’s share price, the anticipated exercise behavior of its grantee, interest rates, and dividend yields. These variables are projected based on the Company’s historical data, experience, and other factors. Changes in any of these variables could result in material adjustments to the expense recognized for share-based payments. Such value is recognized as expense over the requisite service period, net of actual forfeitures, using the accelerated attribution method. The Company recognizes forfeitures as they occur. The estimation of stock awards that will ultimately vest requires judgment, and to the extent actual results, or updated estimates, differ from current estimates, such amounts are recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period estimates are revised.

Performance stock units

The Company also accounts for performance stock units (PSU’s) under ASC 718. ASC 718 requires measurement of compensation cost for all stock-based awards at fair value on the date of grant and recognition of compensation over the requisite service period for awards expected to vest. As vesting of the PSU’s is based on a number of factors, the determination of the grant-date fair value for PSU’s has been estimated using a Monte Carlo simulation approach which includes variables such as the expected volatility of the Company’s share price and interest rates to generate potential future outcomes. These variables are projected based on the Company’s historical data, experience, and other factors. Changes in any of these variables could result in material adjustments to the expense recognized for the PSUs. Such value is recognized as expense over the derived service period using the accelerated attribution method. The estimation of PSUs that will ultimately vest requires judgment, and to the extent actual results, or updated estimates, differ from current estimates, such amounts are recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period estimates are revised.

Derivative liability

The Company accounts for certain warrants under the authoritative guidance on accounting for derivative financial instruments indexed to, and potentially settled in, a company’s own stock, on the understanding that in compliance with applicable securities laws, the warrants require the issuance of securities upon exercise and do not sufficiently preclude an implied right to net cash settlement. The Company classifies these warrants on its balance sheet as a derivative liability which is fair valued at each reporting period subsequent to the initial issuance. The Company has used a binomial model as well as a Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model (based on a closed-form model that uses a fixed equation) to estimate the fair value of the share warrants. Determining the appropriate fair-value model and calculating the fair value of warrants requires considerable judgment. Any change in the estimates (specifically probabilities and volatility) used may cause the value to be higher or lower than that reported. The estimated volatility of the Company’s common stock at the date of issuance, and at each subsequent reporting period, is based on the historical volatility of the Company. The risk-free interest rate is based on rates published by the government for bonds with a maturity similar to the expected remaining life of the warrants at the valuation date. The expected life of the warrants is assumed to be equivalent to their remaining contractual term.

Clinical trial accruals

Clinical trial expenses are a component of research and development costs and include fees paid to contract research organizations, investigators and other service providers who conduct specific research for development activities on behalf of the Company. The amount of clinical trial expenses recognized in a period related to service agreements is based on estimates of the work performed on an accrual basis. These estimates are based on patient enrollment, services provided and goods delivered, contractual terms and experience with similar contracts. The Company monitors these factors by maintaining regular communication with the service providers. Differences between actual expenses and estimated expenses recorded are adjusted for in the period in which they become known. Prepaid expenses or accrued liabilities are adjusted if payments to service providers differ from estimates of the amount of service completed in a given period.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Company does not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any off balance sheet arrangements.

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

Not required for a smaller reporting company.

Item 8. Financial Statements.

DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Consolidated Financial Statements

June 30, 2018

(in US dollars unless otherwise noted)

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) as of June 30, 2018 and 2017, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, change in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of June 30, 2018 and 2017, and the results of its consolidated operations and its consolidated cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The Company's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

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

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the US federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2016.

Vancouver, Canada

September 21, 2018

DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in US dollars unless otherwise noted)