NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. - Annual Report: 2020 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020
or

For the Transition Period from to

Commission File Number 333-88480

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

700 Technology Drive, Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(Address of principal executive offices and zip code)

(646) 450-1790

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

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

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

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 in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No x

As of December 21, 2020, 23,177,591 shares of the common stock, par value $0.0001, of the registrant were outstanding.

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $101 million based upon the closing sale price of our common stock of $7.12 on that date. Common stock held by each officer and director and by each person known to own in excess of 10% of outstanding shares of our common stock has been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

Table of Contents

As previously disclosed on July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ohr”), completed a Merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Legacy NeuBase”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”) entered into on January 2, 2019. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, (i) a subsidiary of Ohr merged with and into Legacy NeuBase, with Legacy NeuBase (renamed as “NeuBase Corporation”) continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ohr and the surviving corporation of the merger and (ii) Ohr was renamed as “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.” (the “Merger”).

For accounting purposes, the Merger is treated as a “reverse asset acquisition” under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) and Legacy NeuBase is considered the acquirer. Accordingly, Legacy NeuBase’s historical results of operations will replace the Company’s (as defined below) historical results of operations for all periods prior to the Merger and, for all periods following the Merger, the results of operations of the combined company will be included in the Company’s financial statements.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Form 10-K”) relates to the Company’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 and is therefore the Company’s fifth periodic report that includes results of operations for the combined company, including Legacy NeuBase.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references to the “Company,” the “combined company,” “we,” “our” or “us” in this report refer to NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries, references to “NeuBase” refer to the Company following the completion of the Merger and references to “Ohr” refer to the Company prior to the completion of the Merger.

Except as otherwise noted, references to “common stock” in this report refer to common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of the Company.

PART I.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in Item 1—“Business,” Item 1.A—“Risk Factors” and Item 7—“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, but appear throughout the Form 10-K. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding our potential product offerings, business, financial condition, results of operations, strategies or prospects and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts or statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. These statements are often identified by the use of words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “opportunity,” “plan,” “potential,” “predicts,” “seek,” “should,” “will,” or “would,” and similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These forward-looking statements are based on the expectations, estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions of our management based on information currently available to management, all of which are subject to change. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that are difficult to predict and could cause our actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially and adversely from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below and those discussed under Item 1.A—“Risk Factors” in this Form 10-K. Furthermore, such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements for any reason, except as otherwise required by law.

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”, “we”, “us” and “our”) is a biotechnology company accelerating the genetic revolution using a new class of synthetic medicines. Our modular peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligo (“PATrOL™”) platform which outputs “anti-gene” candidate therapies is designed to combine the specificity of genetic sequence-based target recognition with a modularity that enables use of various in vivo delivery technologies to enable broad and also selective tissue distribution capabilities. Given that every human disease may have a genetic component, we believe that our differentiated platform technology has the potential for broad impact by increasing, decreasing, or changing gene function at either the DNA or RNA levels to resolve the progression to disease, as appropriate, in a particular indication. We plan to use our platform to address diseases driven by a genetic abnormality and we are initially focused on Huntington’s disease (“HD”) and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (“DM1”).

Mutated proteins resulting from errors in deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) sequences cause rare genetic diseases and cancer. DNA in each cell of the body is transcribed into pre-messenger ribonucleic acid (“pre-mRNA”), which is then processed (spliced) into mRNA, which is exported into the cytoplasm of the cell and translated into a protein. This is termed the “central dogma” of biology. Therefore, when errors in a DNA sequence occur, they are often propagated into RNAs and can produce a damaging protein.

We are developing “anti-gene” therapies. Anti-genes are similar, but distinct, from antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs). ASOs are short single strands of nucleic acids (traditionally thought of as single-stranded RNA molecules) which bind to defective RNA targets in cells and inhibit their ability to form defective proteins. We believe we are a leader in the discovery and development of this new class of anti-gene drugs derived from peptide-nucleic acids (“PNAs”). The key differentiator between ASOs and anti-genes is that the scaffold is not derived from a natural sugar-phosphate nucleic acid backbone, rather is a synthetic polyamide which is charge-neutral (and thus high affinity to allow invasion of double-stranded targets), semi-rigid, and apparently non-biodegradable and immunologically inert. These features provide potential advantages over ASOs and other genetic therapies for modulating disease-causing genes including increased unique target opportunities, improved target specificity and a reduction in both sequence-dependent and independent toxicities. In addition, as these anti-genes are manufactured via standard peptide synthesis methods, they efficiently leverage the advancements in the synthetic peptide industry to enable modulating pharmacophore delivery, pharmacokinetics, sub-cellular placement and endosomal escape.

In addition to the scaffold, we also have a kit of natural nucleobases, chemically modified nucleobases which add further precision to a nucleic acid target of interest, and proprietary bi-specific nucleobases which can be added to the scaffold to allow precise target engagement. These bi-specific nucleobases, in particular, can be used in any combination to more specifically access double stranded DNA targets and RNA targets comprised of secondary structures such as hairpins (double stranded RNA targets which are folded upon themselves). This allows us to potentially access regions of the target transcript which may be unique in secondary structure to allow enhanced selectivity for the target (mutant) RNA as compared to the normal RNA. Enhanced selectivity for mutant RNAs as compared to normal RNAs is critical as normal RNAs are likely required for effective functioning of the cell. These bi-specific nucleotides can also target genomic loci and microRNAs in their double-stranded form.

A third component of the modular platform is the ability to add delivery technology to the pharmacophores so as to reach a desired cell or tissue upon in vivo administration. There is flexibility to append various delivery technologies to the pharmacophore to allow either broad tissue distribution or narrow cell and/or tissue targeting if so desired based on targets. One such technology is a chemical moiety that can be used to decorate the scaffold directly and allows the anti-genes to penetrate cell membranes and into subcellular compartments where they act as well as to distribute throughout the body when administered systemically.

Finally, in addition to the scaffold, modified nucleobases and delivery technology, the platform toolkit also includes linker technology which, when added to both ends of the PNAs, allow cooperative binding between individual drug molecules once they are engaged with the target RNA to form longer and more tightly bound drugs.

This toolkit of components forms the PATrOL™ platform and allows us to manufacture gene and transcript-specific anti-genes.

We are currently focused on therapeutic areas in which we believe our drugs will provide the greatest benefit with a significant market opportunity. We intend to utilize our technology to build out a pipeline of custom designed therapeutics for additional high-value disease targets. We are developing several preclinical programs using our PATrOL™ platform, including the NT0100 program, targeted at Huntington’s disease (“HD”), a repeat expansion disorder, and the NT0200 program, targeted at myotonic dystrophy, type 1 (“DM1”). Preclinical studies are being conducted to evaluate the PATrOL™ platform technology and program candidates in the areas of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tolerability. We reported results from certain of those studies in the first calendar quarter of 2020 and have extended upon certain of those studies in the fourth calendar quarter of 2020 which illustrated that our anti-gene technology can be administered to human patient-derived cell lines and systemically (via intravenous (IV) administration) into animals with DM1 (a genetically modified model accepted as representative of the human disease) and can resolve the causal genetic defect. We expect to present additional results from ongoing preclinical studies evaluating the PATrOL^TM platform and pipeline indications in the first half of calendar 2021, begin IND enabling studies in one or more of our programs in calendar year 2021 and begin a clinical trial in one or more of our programs in calendar 2022. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Recent Developments” on page 85 of this Form 10-K for additional detail regarding certain of our preclinical studies. In addition, the emerging pipeline of other assets that target primary and secondary RNA structure and genomic DNA allows a unique market advantage across a variety of rare diseases and oncology targets.

Overall, using our PATrOL™ platform, we believe we can create anti-gene therapies that have distinct advantages over other chemical entities currently in the market or in development for genetic medicine applications to modulate mutant genes and resolve a clinical trait or disorder. These advantages may differ by indication and can include, among others:

With these unique component parts and their advantages, our PATrOL™ platform-enabled anti-gene therapies can potentially address a multitude of rare genetic diseases and cancer, among other indications.

Business Strategy

We employ a rational approach to selecting disease targets, considering many scientific, technical, business and indication-specific factors before choosing each indication. We intend to build a diverse portfolio of therapies custom-designed to treat a variety of health conditions, with an initial emphasis on rare genetic diseases and cancers. A key component of this strategy is continuing to improve the scientific understanding and optimization of our platform technology and programs, including how various components of our platform technology perform, and our drug candidates impact the biological processes of the target diseases, so that we can utilize this information to reduce risk in our future programs and indications. In addition, with our expertise in discovering and characterizing novel anti-gene drugs, we believe that our scientists can optimize the properties of our PATrOL™-enabled drug candidates for use with particular targets that we determine to be of high value.

The depth of our knowledge and expertise with PNAs, bifacial and engineered nucleotides, genetics and genomics and therapeutic development of first-in-class modalities provides potential flexibility to determine the optimal development and commercialization strategy to maximize the near and longer-term value of our drug candidates.

We have distinct partnering strategies that we plan to employ based on the specific drug candidate, therapeutic area expertise and resources potential partners may bring to a collaboration. For some drug candidates, we may choose to develop and, if approved, commercialize them ourselves or through our affiliates. For other drug candidates, we may form single or multi asset partnerships leveraging our partners’ global expertise and resources needed to support large commercial opportunities.

Industry Segment Background

Rare Genetic Diseases

Globally, there are thousands of genetic diseases, most of which lack any therapeutic options. In addition, rare genetic diseases are often particularly severe, debilitating or fatal. Traditionally, therapeutic development for each rare genetic disorder has been approached with a unique strategy, which is inefficient, as there are thousands of diseases that need treatment solutions. The collective population of people with rare diseases stands to benefit profoundly from the emergence of a scalable and modular treatment development platform that allows for a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates to address these conditions cohesively.

Mutated proteins resulting from errors in deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) sequences cause many rare genetic diseases and cancer. DNA in each cell of the body is transcribed into pre-RNA, which is then processed (spliced) into mRNA which is exported into the cytoplasm of the cell and translated into protein. This is termed the “central dogma” of biology. Therefore, when errors in a DNA sequence occur, they are propagated to RNAs and can become a damaging protein.

Conceptually, we have learned that ASOs can inactivate target RNAs before they can produce harmful proteins by binding them in a sequence-specific manner, which can delay disease progression or even eliminate genetic disease symptoms. ASOs designed by others to target known disease-related mutant RNA sequences have been shown to be able to degrade these transcripts and have a positive clinical impact. Similarly, applications in modifying splicing of pre-RNA in the nucleus of the cell have been developed by others to exclude damaging exons from the final mRNA product and have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). We plan to extend upon these conceptual breakthroughs by utilizing our first-in-class technology which we believe has significant benefits in certain application areas to better resolve a clinical disorder with well tolerated anti-gene therapies.

We believe the breadth of the PATrOL™ platform gives us the ability to potentially address a multitude of inherited genetic diseases. The technology may also allow us to target and inactivate gain-of-function and change-of-function mutations, and address targets in recessive disease and haploinsufficiencies by altering splicing to remove damaging exons/mutations or increasing expression of wild-type alleles by various means.

The gamma-modified scaffold, an optimized variant of which we utilize, has demonstrated preclinical in vivo efficacy in several applications which we believe can be translated across many targets and into humans. For example, in oncology the scaffold has reduced expression of an activated oncogene (the epidermal growth factor of the EGFR gene) and has modified gene regulation by targeting microRNAs to slow tumor growth. This scaffold has also demonstrated in vivo engagement with the double-stranded genome in studies done by others to perform in vivo single-base genome editing.

ASO Therapies

ASO therapies have been in development for several decades and are largely comprised of chemically modified, short-length RNA strands, commonly known as oligonucleotides. Oligonucleotides are comprised of a sequence of nucleotides—the building blocks of RNA and DNA—that are linked together by a negatively charged backbone of chemical bonds. In nucleic acid molecules that have not been modified for therapeutic use, the nucleotides are linked by phosphodiester (“PO”) bonds. Such unmodified nucleic acid molecules are unsuitable for use as therapeutics, because they are rapidly degraded by enzymes called nucleases which are widely distributed in the human body, are rapidly cleared by the kidneys and are taken up poorly by targeted cells. The industry has employed chemical modifications of the nucleotides and PO bonds as well as other modifications that improve the stability, biodistribution and cellular uptake of nucleic acid therapeutics.

Challenges of Historical ASOs

ASOs can be highly specific to a singular RNA sequence, decreasing but not eliminating the chance of potentially toxic off-target sequence engagement effects. When possible and designed properly, ASOs target exactly one mutated RNA sequence, corresponding directly to the genetic disorder of interest. Because they are targeted selectively to one sequence (when a unique sequence is available in the transcriptome and not “buried” in a transcript’s secondary structure), optimally constructed ASOs do not target any additional genes and thus potentially reduce the likelihood of adverse events or side effects. While they have great potential, in practice, ASOs have been constrained by several factors intrinsic to their composition, including some or all of the following factors:

Peptide Nucleic Acids and Janus Bases

PNAs were first described in 1991 by Peter Nielson, Michael Egholm and Ole Buchardt. While these PNAs were shown to be able to bind nucleic acid strands in a sequence specific manner, this effect was not possible with targets comprised of both purines and pyrimidines. These first PNAs were also not water soluble, could not pass across cell membranes, and self-aggregated, leading to potential toxic accumulation of the drug and thus possible safety issues. Based on this early data, the PNA scaffold was modified at the alpha positions to add conformational homogeneity enabling binding with mixed purine/pyrimidine natural nuclear base targets and additionally to allow water solubility. This was the first step to enabling their therapeutic use.

In 1996, Neil Branda, Guido Kurtz and Jean-Marie Lehn published “JANUS WEDGES: a new approach towards nucleobase-pair recognition” in the journal Chemical Communications. These bifacial nucleobases had the potential to open a double helix and bind to both strands at a genomic locus in a “triad” motif utilizing the maximum number of Watson-Crick interactions. An issue with these early bi-specific nucleotides was that they were not uniform in their size and thus could not be used together on a peptide scaffold to achieve the potential of binding both faces of an open DNA (or RNA) double helix. Chemical design of the sixteen possible Janus bases such that they could be used as nucleobase analogs in Watson-Crick base pairing across any locus of interest is a key innovation performed by Carnegie Mellon University in enabling their therapeutic potential.

PATrOL™ Technology Platform

Scaffold technology: The PATrOL^TM platform is a novel technology that we believe has the potential to significantly improve upon standard ASO breakthroughs by combining the specificity of antisense approaches with the modularity and innovations in peptide synthesis and a deep functional motif knowledge-base. We term the output of this first-in-class technology platform “anti-gene” therapies. Some of the potential advantages of using our synthetic scaffold vs. ASO technologies include:

Delivery technology: In preclinical studies, our PATrOL™-enabled therapeutic candidates have shown potential advantages over ASOs. We believe that chief among these advantages are cell permeability and broad tissue distribution. These advantages would allow our PATrOL™ therapeutic candidates to potentially address a wide range of disorders affecting various organs and tissues with systemic or local administration.

In part, chemical modifications to the scaffold include an active moiety, which has been shown to be able to deliver payloads into cells through a process that appears to be both receptor-mediated and potentially endosome-independent (process coined “active translocation”). The preclinical study which is the genesis of a medicinal chemistry process by the academics at CMU over the course of more than a decade of research, was published in a peer reviewed publication in 1999 by Dr. Steven Dowdy’s team (one of our Scientific Advisory Board members) (Schwarze SR, Ho A, Vocero-Akbani A, Dowdy SF. In vivo protein transduction: delivery of a biologically active protein into the mouse. Science. 1999 Sep 3;285(5433):1569-72. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5433.1569. PMID: 10477521.). These preclinical data describe how an active delivery moiety can traffic a payload of 120kD not only into most tissues, but also across the blood-brain barrier and into the cell bodies of neurons through all regions of the brain. In 2006, a team at CMU was the first to couple a similar active moiety to the scaffold of PNAs and show penetration through cell membranes (Dragulescu-Andrasi A, Rapireddy S, He G, Bhattacharya B, Hyldig-Nielsen JJ, Zon G, Ly DH. Cell-permeable peptide nucleic acid designed to bind to the 5’-untranslated region of E-cadherin transcript induces potent and sequence-specific antisense effects. J Am Chem Soc. 2006 Dec 20;128(50):16104-12. doi: 10.1021/ja063383v. PMID: 17165763.). This sequence of innovation has been further optimized by us to form the current generation of our targeting chemistry which enables in vivo IV administration of a single dose of our NT0200-series anti-gene candidate targeting the DM1 mutation and delivers the pharmacophore into skeletal muscle and the nucleus, and engages the target transcript, which resolved the causal defect within 24 hours of administration.

We continue to innovate on and optimize our delivery technologies and strategies so as to be able to deliver anti-gene pharmacophores with narrowed cell-type specificity as there are use-cases where this may be desirable.

Nucleobase technology: With our proprietary modular technology, we can design therapies with our synthetic scaffold onto which are coupled natural or modified nucleobases. These scaffold monomers, often each coupled to the proprietary delivery technology moiety, are manufactured by us and/or our suppliers. In addition to being able to create these cell-permeable broadly distributed monomers and resultant oligomerized scaffolds that contain natural nucleobases, we have licensed proprietary engineered nucleobases (including bi-specific “Janus” bases) exclusively from CMU which can also be coupled to monomer precursors. With these cell permeable monomers forming the basis of the platform, they can be linked together to form oligomers of any sequence composition, matching a genetic target of interest. We believe that the modular components (i.e. the “monomers”) make the platform highly scalable for manufacturing purposes, thus enabling a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates for mutant gene silencing than traditional methods.

We believe we are the first and only company to successfully create Janus bases, engineered nucleic acids that target double-stranded RNA and potentially DNA by engaging both strands at once. The concept of Janus bases was first conceived nearly two decades ago but had not yet been realized due to the difficulty in chemical process development and the re-engineering required to allow the bifacial bases to have equal size – key considerations in creating tightly binding triple helices (or triads). A team of scientists has co-invented sixteen different Janus bases to interface with every possible combination of sixteen canonical and non-canonical nucleobase pairs that could occur in target DNA and RNA. Janus bases can be combined in various combinations to bind in a sequence-specific manner to secondary and tertiary RNA structures, whereas traditional ASOs generally cannot, and thus many sequences have heretofore not been targetable. This gives us the ability to expand the applicability of ASOs beyond their current capabilities as our anti-genes are not limited to regions of DNA and RNA that are free of secondary structure and thus potentially opens up a multitude of additional sequence targets. Our approach can also potentially be utilized for DNA therapeutics such as have been shown with a gamma-modified PNA scaffold in in vivo single base genome editing and potentially in DNA-based gene regulation.

We have licensed proprietary technology from CMU, which comprises some of the modular elements of the PATrOL™ platform such as chemically engineered bi-specific Janus nucleobases against not only canonical base pairs (A-T or C-G hydrogen bonding), but also non-canonical binding, which allows targeting of RNA hairpins where the double-stranded RNA cannot bind to itself due to a mismatch, but that mismatch can be bound and stabilized by the non-canonical bifacial nucleotide. The elegance of this approach is the combination of the non-charged peptide scaffold that does not cause repulsion when near a negatively charged DNA or RNA double helix with the proprietary bifacial nucleotides of uniform size. This combination is particularly powerful at the RNA level in addressing RNA hairpins with non-canonical bases to stabilize them and potentially eliminate the ability of target transcripts to be translated. The following Figure 1 illustrates the concept of how our chemically engineered bi-specific nucleobases tethered to a scaffold can intercalate into the double-stranded RNA and assume a stable and sterically appropriate triple helix. The technology was developed over the course of almost a decade, and we believe it is unique to us, allowing us to target RNA secondary structures either by opening them up via our gamma-PNA technology, thus allowing sequence-specific selectivity of targets that have been largely not addressable to competing RNA silencing technologies.

Figure 1. Simulations of a bi-specific Janus base binding to an RNA duplex containing the corresponding base-pairs illustrating the pre-organized right-handed structure of the gamma-PNA and the steric uniformity of the bifacial nucleotides.

While traditional ASOs can be long (i.e., 16-mers or longer), PATrOL™-enabled anti-gene therapies can be smaller due to higher binding affinity and the use of bi-specific nucleobases (which have twice as many hydrogen bonds as standard nucleobases), potentially allowing them to better reach target tissues and disseminate more evenly within subcellular compartments. As a result of their potential better capability to disperse through many body tissues, PATrOL™-enabled therapies have the potential to address whole-body symptoms of diseases that manifest in multiple organ systems.

Product Pipeline

NT0100 Program - PATrOL™ Enabled Anti-Gene for Huntington’s Disease

HD is a devastating rare neurodegenerative disorder. After onset, symptoms such as uncontrolled movements, cognitive impairments and emotional disturbances worsen over time. HD is caused by toxic aggregation of mutant huntingtin protein, leading to progressive neuron loss in the striatum and cortex of the brain. The wild-type huntingtin gene (HTT) has a region in which a three-base DNA sequence, CAG, is repeated many times. When the DNA sequence CAG is repeated 26 or fewer times in this region, the resulting protein behaves normally. While the wild-type function of HTT protein is largely uncharacterized, it is known to be essential for normal brain development. When the DNA sequence CAG is repeated 40 times or more in this region, the resulting protein becomes toxic and causes HD. Every person has two copies, or alleles, of the HTT gene. Only one of the alleles (the “mutant” allele) needs to bear at least 40 CAG repeats for HD to occur. HD is one of many known repeat expansion disorders, which are a set of genetic disorders caused by a mutation that leads to a repeat of nucleotides exceeding the normal threshold. Current therapies for patients with HD can only manage individual symptoms. There is no approved therapy that has been shown to delay or halt disease progression. There are approximately 30,000 symptomatic patients in the U.S. and more than 200,000 at-risk of inheriting the disease globally.

One especially important advantage of the PATrOL™ platform that makes it promising for the treatment of repeat expansion disorders like HD is the ability of our small anti-genes to potentially target the RNA hairpin. As the number of repeats increases, the PATrOL™ anti-genes bind more tightly to each other and the mutant RNA. This allows our therapies to potentially inactivate mutant HTT mRNA before it can be translated into harmful protein via selective binding to the expanded CAG repeats while leaving the normal HTT mRNA largely unbound to drug and producing functional protein. Achieving mutant allele selectivity would be a key advantage for any RNA-based approach aiming to treat HD. In March of 2020 we illustrated the ability of our anti-gene technology to enrich for translational inhibition and resultant mutant protein in human patient-derived cell lines versus wild-type HTT alleles. We illustrated that our anti-genes can inhibit ribosomal elongation via a high-affinity binding. The PATrOL™-enabled NT0100 program is currently in preclinical development for the treatment of HD.

NT0200 Program- PATrOL™ Enabled Anti-Gene for Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1

Our pipeline also contains a second potentially transformative medicine, which we believe has significant potential for DM1, a severe and rare trinucleotide repeat disease. DM1 is a multisystem disorder that primarily affects skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle, as well as the brain. DM1 is caused by expansion of a CUG trinucleotide repeat in the 3’ untranslated region (UTR), a noncoding region of the myotonic dystrophy protein kinase gene (DMPK) transcript, which captures and sequesters protein that have critical functions in the nucleus related to appropriate splicing of hundreds of transcripts. These sequestered proteins cannot then fulfill their normal functions. In addition, it has been documented that sequestration of the mutant transcripts in the nucleus results in their inability to be translated and results in haploinsufficiency, a situation where 50% of the protein in not enough to maintain normal function. Mice with both copies of their DMPK gene knocked out manifest a cardiac conduction defect (Berul CI, Maguire CT, Aronovitz MJ, Greenwood J, Miller C, Gehrmann J, Housman D, Mendelsohn ME, Reddy S. DMPK dosage alterations result in atrioventricular conduction abnormalities in a mouse myotonic dystrophy model. J Clin Invest. 1999 Feb;103(4):R1-7. doi: 10.1172/JCI5346. PMID: 10021468; PMCID: PMC408103.) and a CNS phenotype characterized by abnormal long-term potentiation (Schulz PE, McIntosh AD, Kasten MR, Wieringa B, Epstein HF. A role for myotonic dystrophy protein kinase in synaptic plasticity. J Neurophysiol. 2003 Mar;89(3):1177-86. doi: 10.1152/jn.00504.2002. Epub 2002 Nov 13. PMID: 12612014.) hypothesized to be due to inappropriate cytoskeletal remodeling. We propose that our mechanism of action is via direct engagement of our anti-gene with the expanded CUG repeat hairpin structure in the 3’ UTR of mutant transcript, invasion and opening of the hairpin structure, and release of the sequestered CUG-repeat binding proteins. This release of sequestered proteins which are normally involved in developmentally appropriate pre-mRNA splicing in the nucleus resolves the generalized splice defect and thus the major causal event. Our DM1 anti-gene is designed to not specifically degrade the mutant transcript, rather to release these RNA-protein aggregates through steric displacement, which could also resolve any haploinsufficiency and as a result may improve endophenotypes of the clinical condition, such as in the heart and brain (contingent on delivering effective concentrations of anti-gene to these tissues).

DM1 is characterized clinically by myotonia (inability to relax a muscle after contraction), muscle weakness, muscle wasting and a CNS endophenotype that is characterized by and is confirmed by molecular genetic testing of DMPK trinucleotiode repeat expansion. CTG repeat length (in the genome) exceeding 34 repeats is abnormal and often patients have hundreds or thousands of repeat units. Molecular genetic testing detects pathogenic variants in nearly 100% of affected individuals. It is estimated that the global prevalence of DM1 is 1 in 20,000 individuals. Our recent data illustrates that we are able to systemically deliver our anti-genes intravenously in DM1 genetic mouse models, engage the target in the skeletal muscles of the animals, and induce rescue of the causal splice defects.

Additional Indications

In addition, we are in the process of building an early stage pipeline of other therapies that focus on the unique advantages of our technology across a variety of diseases with an underlying genetic driver.

Intellectual Property

The initial intellectual property position behind our fundamental PATrOL™ technology was initially developed at CMU. Our success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates in the United States and other countries. We have exclusively licensed patent applications, pursuant to our license agreement with CMU (the “CMU License Agreement”), protecting our platform for development and commercialization of therapeutics. We will focus our resources on obtaining patents and filing new patent applications that drive value.

We have an exclusive license to patent applications pursuant to the CMU License Agreement that may provide exclusivity for product candidates in our pipeline and may provide exclusivity for our core technology. Our core technology patent applications are directed to chemically-modified nucleosides and peptide nucleic acids to form compounds of biological and clinical interest. We have exclusively licensed patent applications pursuant to the CMU License Agreement to cover 16 Janus bases and treatment of repeat expansion disorders using this technology.

Peptide Nucleic Acids containing Modified Nucleobases

We have exclusively licensed patent applications pursuant to the CMU License Agreement covering peptide nucleic acid oligomers containing modified nucleobases, which can be used as a basis for therapeutics. Nucleosides and chemically modified nucleosides are the basic building blocks of our drug development platform. Therefore, claims that cover an oligonucleotide incorporating one of our proprietary modified nucleosides may apply to a wide array of mechanisms of action and therapeutic targets. Our modified nucleobases may comprise a divalent nucleobase in sequence with several other divalent nucleobases to create a PNA.

We have filed patent applications in this category in the United States and pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Methods of Producing Peptide Nucleic Acids with Modified Nucleobases

We have exclusively licensed a patent (with an estimated expiration date of April 11, 2034) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement disclosing a method of manufacturing a peptide nucleic acid oligomer containing a modified nucleobase. We have exclusively licensed a provisional patent application (with an estimated expiration date of March 21, 2040) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement disclosing a method of synthesis of LH and RH gamma PNA monomers with on-resin sidechain functionalization.

Use of Peptide Nucleic Acids to Disrupt RNA Structure

We have exclusively licensed a provisional patent application (with an estimated expiration date of June 7, 2039) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement covering use of a peptide nucleic acid oligomer for disrupting a target RNA structure, to prevent translation of a target protein.

Use of Peptide Nucleic Acids to Treat Repeat Expansion Disorders

We have exclusively licensed patent applications (with an estimated expiration date of February 22, 2040) in the United States pursuant to the CMU License Agreement covering the use of a peptide nucleic acid oligomer for the treatment of repeat expansion disorders, including, for example, HD and DM1.

Patent Portfolio

We plan to seek patent protection in significant markets and/or countries for each product to be developed. We also seek to maximize patent terms. In some cases, the patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term lost during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) regulatory review. The patent exclusivity period for a drug may deter generic drugs from entering the market. Patent exclusivity depends on a number of factors including initial patent term and available patent term extensions based upon delays caused by the regulatory approval process. We also rely on trade secrets, proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain a competitive position in our field.

While we have obtained patents and have patent applications pending, the extent of effective patent protection in the United States and other countries is highly uncertain. No consistent policy addresses the breadth of claims allowed in or the degree of protection afforded under patents of medical and pharmaceutical companies. Patents we currently own or may obtain might not be sufficiently broad to protect us against competitors with similar technology. Any of our patents could be invalidated or circumvented.

The holders of competing patents could determine to commence a lawsuit against us and may even prevail in any such lawsuit. Litigation could result in substantial cost to and diversion of effort by us, which may harm our business. In addition, our efforts to protect or defend our proprietary rights may not be successful or, even if successful, may result in substantial cost to us.

License Agreement with Carnegie Mellon University

On December 17, 2018, we entered into the CMU License Agreement. Under the CMU License Agreement, CMU granted us an exclusive, worldwide right to the PATrOL™ technology. Our exclusive, worldwide right to the PATrOL™ technology is subject to CMU’s right (which is exercisable only upon our written consent) to grant a non-exclusive license to a third party as a means of resolving disputes or to settle claims arising out of allegations that the licensed technology under the CMU License Agreement infringes upon the intellectual property rights of such third party.

As partial consideration for the license right, we issued and delivered to CMU 835,625 shares of our common stock. Further, as partial consideration for the license right, we issued a warrant to CMU, and CMU exercised such warrant prior to the effective time of the Merger (as defined below) for an aggregate of 103,787 shares of our common stock. Under the CMU License Agreement, CMU has preemptive rights with respect to certain future sales of securities by us for capital-raising purposes, “piggyback” registration rights and co-sale rights with respect to certain resales of shares by our stockholders.

Pursuant to the CMU License Agreement, we paid CMU a one-time payment of approximately $54,000 for patenting and other intellectual property protection costs incurred by CMU prior to the effective date of the CMU License Agreement and relating to the licensed technology thereunder. Further, we must achieve certain milestones to demonstrate certain developments of the licensed product. We may obtain one 6-month extension to meet each milestone by making a nominal payment to CMU. Further, subject to certain conditions, we will pay to CMU royalties at a low single-digit percentage of aggregate annual net sales of licensed products and a percentage at the higher range of the bottom third of sublicensing fees.

The term of the CMU License Agreement concludes at the end of 20 years from its effective date or on the expiration date of the last-to-expire patent licensed, whichever comes later, unless otherwise terminated. The CMU License Agreement may be terminated (or the exclusivity of the license may be terminated) before the term due to customary payment default and fundamental change default provisions and failure of performance obligations. In addition, CMU may terminate the CMU License Agreement if we or our affiliates challenge the validity of the intellectual property licensed thereunder in a judicial or administrative proceeding. In the event we or our affiliates successfully challenge the validity of the intellectual property licensed thereunder, the royalties payable to CMU increase by a single digit percentage. We may terminate the CMU License Agreement upon payment of termination fees, the amounts of which depend on the date of such termination, but only if at the time of such termination, a licensed patent contains a valid claim. If not earlier terminated, at the expiration of the term, the rights and licenses granted to us by CMU survive in perpetuity, subject to our compliance with indemnification and dispute resolution obligations.

Manufacturing

We currently manufacture our starting materials both in-house and by using third-party suppliers and our research-scale final products both in-house and externally. We intend to rely on third parties for larger scale manufacturing going forward. We do not have any current contractual arrangements for the manufacture of commercial supplies of any of our product candidates that we may develop. We currently employ internal resources and third-party consultants to manage our manufacturing contractors.

Sales and Marketing

We have not yet defined our sales, marketing or product distribution strategy for any of our future product candidates. Our commercial strategy may include the use of strategic partners, distributors, a contract sale force, or the establishment of our own commercial and specialty sales force, as well as similar strategies for regions and territories outside the United States. We plan to further evaluate these alternatives when it approaches approval for the use of our product candidates for one or more indications.

Competition

The biotechnology industry is highly competitive and involves a high degree of risk. Potential competitors in the United States and worldwide are numerous and include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, educational institutions and research foundations. We compete with many of these companies who, either alone or with their strategic partners, have far greater experience, capital resources, research and technical resources, marketing experience, clinical trial experience, research and development staffs and facilities than we do. Some of our competitors may develop and commercialize products that compete directly with our product candidates, and they may introduce products to market earlier than our products or on a more cost-effective basis. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and also, in the future, to recruit clinical trial sites and subjects for our clinical trials.

We expect any products that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are viewed as safer, more effective, more convenient or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their competing products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for any of our product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

There are currently no approved treatments available to slow the progression of HD. Based on publicly available information, Roche and Ionis have an investigational drug in Phase III clinical development, and several companies have ongoing clinical and preclinical programs targeting the underlying disease in HD, including Wave Life Sciences, LTD., Sangamo Biosciences, ProQR, Nuredis, UniQure, Spark Therapeutics, PTC Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Voyager Therapeutics. We are aware that a number of other companies are developing drugs focused on treating the symptoms associated with HD, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Phase II), Prana Biotechnology (Phase II), Omeros Corporation (Phase II), and Azevan Pharmaceuticals (Phase II), among others.

There are no disease-modifying treatments available for DM1. Based on publicly available information, we are aware of several companies actively pursuing preclinical and clinical development on various approaches to treat DM1 including: AMO Pharma, Avidity Biosciences, Dyne Therapeutics, Vertex, Triplet Therapeutics, Expansion Therapeutics, and Nuredis.

Reverse Stock Split

On January 18, 2019, following a special meeting of our stockholders, our board of directors approved a one-for-twenty reverse stock split of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock (the “Reverse Stock Split”). On January 23, 2019, we filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware a Certificate of Amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation to effect the Reverse Stock Split. Our common stock began trading on a split-adjusted basis when the market opened on February 4, 2019. As a result of the Reverse Stock Split, the outstanding common stock decreased from 56,466,428 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, to 2,829,248 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share.

Unless otherwise noted, impacted amounts and share information included in the financial statements and notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K have been retroactively adjusted for the Reverse Stock Split as if such Reverse Stock Split occurred on the first day of the first period presented. Certain amounts in the financial statements, the notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, may be slightly different than previously reported due to rounding of fractional shares as a result of the Reverse Stock Split.

Merger

On July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ohr”), completed a merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Legacy NeuBase”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019 (the “Merger Agreement”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, (i) a subsidiary of Ohr merged with and into Legacy NeuBase, with Legacy NeuBase (renamed as “NeuBase Corporation”) continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ohr and the surviving corporation of the merger and (ii) Ohr was renamed as “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.” (the “Merger”). At the closing of the Merger, each outstanding share of Legacy NeuBase’s capital stock was converted into the right to receive 1.019055643 shares of the Company’s common stock. Shares of the Company’s common stock commenced trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “NBSE” as of market open on July 15, 2019. The Company’s previous ticker symbol was “OHRP”.

Unless otherwise noted, impacted amounts and share information included in the financial statements and notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K have been retroactively adjusted for the Merger as if such Merger occurred on the first day of the first period presented. Certain amounts in the financial statements, the notes thereto, and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, may be slightly different than previously reported due to rounding of fractional shares as a result of the Merger.

Common Stock Offering

On April 30, 2020, the Company closed an underwritten public offering of 6,037,500 shares of its common stock (inclusive of 787,500 shares that were sold pursuant to the underwriters’ full exercise of their option to purchase additional shares of the Company’s common stock), at a price to the public of $6.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds from the offering of approximately $33.3 million, after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and other estimated offering expenses payable by the Company. The Company has used and intends to use the net proceeds from this offering for working capital and general corporate purposes and to advance the development of its product candidates and expand its pipeline.

Legacy Pre-Merger Programs

As a result of the Merger, our going-forward operations are primarily those of Legacy NeuBase. Pursuant to the Merger, we retained certain assets and technologies that were Ohr’s assets and technologies before the consummation of the Merger. Despite our expectation that our primary operations will be those of Legacy NeuBase on a going-forward basis, we may choose to monetize legacy Ohr assets in the future. Previously, Ohr acquired the SKS Ocular 1 LLC sustained release technology, which was designed to develop best in class drug formulations for ocular disease (the “SKS Assets”) and exclusive rights to an animal model for dry macular degeneration and rights to produce and use carboxyethylpyrrole (“CEP”) for research, clinical and commercial applications (the “CEP Assets”). In September 2019, we terminated the licenses for the SKS Assets and the CEP Assets, as the Board determined there would be substantial costs associated with continuing to maintain such assets and attempts to monetize such assets would be a distraction to our management and other employees and an inefficient use of their time. We continue to retain an equity interest in DepYmed, Inc. (“DepYmed”), a joint venture that Ohr entered into with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2014. DepYmed is a preclinical stage company focused on Wilson’s disease, Rett syndrome, and oncology applications. We also retain intellectual property which has been licensed to DepYmed and have no other ongoing obligations (monetary or otherwise) to DepYmed.

Governmental Regulation

Government authorities in the United States (including federal, state and local authorities) and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the manufacturing, research and clinical development, marketing, labeling and packaging, storage, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, advertising and promotion, pricing and export and import of pharmaceutical products, such as our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Moreover, failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in, among other things, warning letters, clinical holds, civil or criminal penalties, recall or seizure of products, injunction, disbarment, partial or total suspension of production or withdrawal of the product from the market. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Food and Drug Administration Regulation and Marketing Approval

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”), and related regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. regulatory requirements at any time during the drug development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions and non-approval of product candidates. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) of a clinical hold on clinical trials, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or related supplements, withdrawal of an approval, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large amount of resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record-keeping, approval, post-approval monitoring, advertising, promotion, sampling and import and export of our products. Our drug candidates must be approved by the FDA through the New Drug Application (“NDA”) process before they may be legally marketed in the United States.

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

IND and Clinical Trials

Prior to commencing the first clinical trial, an IND, which contains the results of preclinical studies along with other information, such as information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed protocol, must be submitted to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be conducted during drug development. Further, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the investigational plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that site. Informed written consent must also be obtained from each trial subject. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board or the sponsor, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements.

For purposes of NDA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in sequential phases that may overlap:

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations, GCP requirements and their protocols in order for the data to be considered reliable for regulatory purposes.

An investigational drug product that is a combination of two different drugs in the same dosage form must comply with an additional rule that requires that each component make a contribution to the claimed effects of the drug product. This typically requires larger studies that test the drug against each of its components. In addition, typically, if a drug product is intended to treat a chronic disease, as is the case with some of our product candidates, safety and efficacy data must be gathered over an extended period of time, which can range from six months to three years or more. Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of product candidates or new drugs for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures upon our activities.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial, is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

The NDA Approval Process

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug for the proposed indication. Each NDA submission requires a substantial user fee payment (exceeding $2.9 million in fiscal year 2020) unless a waiver or exemption applies. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent non-clinical studies, or preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators that meet GCP requirements.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase II clinical trials, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end-of-Phase II clinical trials meetings to discuss their Phase II clinical trials results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase III registration trial that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional preclinical safety studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for the NDA sponsor’s manufacturing the product in compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drugs. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf-life.

The results of drug development, non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to conduct an initial review to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the FDA’s threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. If the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA has agreed to specific performance goals on the review of NDAs and seeks to review standard NDAs within 12 months from submission of the NDA. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. After the FDA completes its initial review of an NDA, it will communicate to the sponsor that the drug will either be approved, or it will issue a complete response letter to communicate that the NDA will not be approved in its current form and inform the sponsor of changes that must be made or additional clinical, non-clinical or manufacturing data that must be received before the application can be approved, with no implication regarding the ultimate approvability of the application or the timing of any such approval, if ever. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two to six months depending on the type of information included. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or effectiveness to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP regulations. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it typically will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information. This may significantly delay further review of the application. If the FDA finds that a clinical site did not conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP regulations, the FDA may determine the data generated by the clinical site should be excluded from the primary efficacy analyses provided in the NDA. Additionally, notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, Phase IV clinical trials, which are additional clinical trials performed after a product is approved. Phase IV clinical trials may be made a condition to be satisfied for continuing drug approval. The results of Phase IV clinical trials can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information. In addition, the FDA now has express statutory authority to require sponsors to conduct post-marketing trials to specifically address safety issues identified by the agency.

The FDA also has authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), from manufacturers to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. A sponsor may also voluntarily propose a REMS as part of the NDA submission. The need for a REMS is determined as part of the review of the NDA. Based on statutory standards, elements of a REMS may include “dear doctor letters,” a medication guide, more elaborate targeted educational programs, and in some cases elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”), which is the most restrictive REMS. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. These elements are negotiated as part of the NDA approval, and in some cases if consensus is not obtained until after the “review date” set forth under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, as amended, the approval date may be delayed. Once adopted, REMS are subject to periodic assessment and modification.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or might contain significant limitations on use in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications, or in the form of onerous risk management plans, restrictions on distribution or post-marketing trial requirements. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Delay in obtaining, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for our products, or obtaining approval but for significantly limited use, would harm our business. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. or foreign governmental action.

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States.

Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical study costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. In addition, the first NDA or Biologics License Application (“BLA”) applicant to receive orphan drug designation for a particular drug is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years in the United States, except in limited circumstances. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Our initial two programs are targeting orphan indications.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide a process for listing patents pertaining to approved products in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book) and for a competitor seeking approval of an application that references a product with listed patents to make certifications pertaining to such patents. In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide for a statutory protection, known as non-patent exclusivity, against the FDA’s acceptance or approval of certain competitor applications.

Patent Term Restoration

Patent term restoration can compensate for time lost during drug development and the regulatory review process by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, provided the sponsor acted with diligence. Patent term restorations, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed by the NDA holder listed in the drug’s application or otherwise are then published in the FDA’s Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”). An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical studies or clinical trials to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (1) the required patent information has not been filed; (2) the listed patent has expired; (3) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a Section VIII statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

An applicant submitting an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA (a “Section 505(b)(2) NDA”), which permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, is required to certify to the FDA regarding any patents listed in the Orange Book for the approved product it references to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Market Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, a Section 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the non-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Post-Marketing Requirements.

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet, including social media. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, who may or may not grant approval, or may include in a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state and foreign regulations. In the United States, the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, as amended, a part of the FDCA.

In the United States, once a product is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific, approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. NeuBase relies, and expects to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such product or may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, also known as Phase IV testing, REMS to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, withdrawal of approval, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly-discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products in development.

Reimbursement, Anti-Kickback and False Claims Laws and Other Regulatory Matters

In the United States, the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of drug products and medical devices are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Attorneys General and other state and local government agencies. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, the privacy regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program (“Part D”) to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (medical insurance), Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for product candidates for which NeuBase receives regulatory approval. However, any negotiated prices for our product candidates covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-government payors.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. A plan for the research will be developed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our product candidates, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a clinical trial. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates, if approved. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our product candidates on a profitable basis.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be priced significantly lower than in the United States.

As noted above, in the United States, we are subject to complex laws and regulations pertaining to healthcare “fraud and abuse,” including, but not limited to, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and other state and federal laws and regulations. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer, or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug, or other good or service for which payment in whole or in part may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Due to the breadth of these federal and state anti-kickback laws, the absence of guidance in the form of regulations or court decisions and the potential for additional legal or regulatory change in this area, it is possible that our future sales and marketing practices or our future relationships with medical professionals might be challenged under anti-kickback laws, which could harm us. Because we intend to commercialize product candidates that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we plan to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our product candidates, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been found liable under the federal False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for a federal False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between currently $11,665 and $23,331 for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a federal False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act and certain states have enacted laws modeled after the federal False Claims Act.

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, as discussed below, a similar federal requirement requires manufacturers to track and report to the federal government certain payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals in the previous calendar year. These laws may affect our sales, marketing and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state, and soon federal, authorities.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects companies to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a company to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (1) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (2) additions or modifications to product labeling; (3) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (4) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “PPACA”), was enacted, which includes measures that have or will significantly change the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the PPACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

Many of the details regarding the implementation of the PPACA are yet to be determined, and, at this time, the full effect of the PPACA on our business remains unclear. Further, there have been recent public announcements by members of the U.S. Congress, President Trump and his administration regarding their plans to repeal and replace the PPACA. For example, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which, among other things, eliminated the individual mandate requiring most Americans (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage, effective January 1, 2019. We cannot predict the ultimate form or timing of any repeal or replacement of the PPACA or the effect such a repeal or replacement would have on our business.

Pediatric Exclusivity and Pediatric Use

Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (the “BPCA”), certain drugs may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA (a “Written Request”) relating to the use of the active moiety of the drug in children. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. The FDA may not issue a Written Request for studies on unapproved or approved indications or where it determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may not produce health benefits in that population. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

We have not received a Written Request for such pediatric studies, although we may ask the FDA to issue a Written Request for such studies in the future. To receive the six-month pediatric market exclusivity, we would need to receive a Written Request from the FDA, conduct the requested studies in accordance with a written agreement with the FDA or, if there is no written agreement, in accordance with commonly accepted scientific principles, and submit reports of the studies. A Written Request may include studies for indications that are not currently in the labeling if the FDA determines that such information will benefit the public health. The FDA will accept the reports upon its determination that the studies were conducted in accordance with, and are responsive to, the original Written Request or commonly accepted scientific principles, as appropriate, and that the reports comply with the FDA’s filing requirements.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (the “PREA”), an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The PREA also authorizes the FDA to require holders of approved NDAs for marketed drugs to conduct pediatric studies under certain circumstances. With the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (the “FDASIA”), in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Human Capital Resources

In order to achieve the goals and expectations of our Company, it is crucial that we continue to attract and retain top talent. To facilitate talent attraction and retention, we strive to make NeuBase a safe and rewarding workplace, with opportunities for our employees to grow and develop in their careers, supported by strong compensation, benefits and health and wellness programs, and by programs that build connections between our employees.

As of November 30, 2020, we had fifteen full-time employees in the United States. None of our employees are represented by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that we have a good relationship with our employees. During fiscal 2020, our voluntary turnover rate was less than 7%.

The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our employees. Accordingly, we are committed to their health, safety and wellness. We provide our employees and their families with access to a variety of innovative, flexible and convenient health and wellness programs, including benefits that provide protection and security so they can have peace of mind concerning events that may require time away from work or that impact their financial well-being; that support their physical and mental health by providing tools and resources to help them improve or maintain their health status and encourage engagement in healthy behaviors; and that offer choice where possible so they can customize their benefits to meet their needs and the needs of their families. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations. This includes having some of our non-laboratory employees work from home, while implementing additional safety measures for employees continuing critical on-site work.

We provide robust compensation and benefits programs to help meet the needs of our employees. In addition to salaries, these programs include potential annual discretionary bonuses, stock awards, a 401(k) Plan, healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings and flexible spending accounts, paid time off, family leave, and flexible work schedules, among others. In addition to our broad-based equity award programs, we have used targeted equity-based grants with vesting conditions to facilitate retention of personnel, particularly those with critical drug development skills and experience.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on August 4, 2009, as successor to BBM Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Prime Resource, Inc., which was organized March 29, 2002 as a Utah corporation) pursuant to a reincorporation merger. On August 4, 2009, we reincorporated in Delaware as “Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc.” On July 12, 2019, we completed the Merger with NeuBase Corporation (formerly known as NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, and, upon completion of the Merger, we changed our name to “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.” Shares of our common stock commenced trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “NBSE” as of market open on July 15, 2019.

Address

Our principal executive offices are located at 700 Technology Drive, Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, and our telephone number is (646) 450-1790. Our website is located at www.neubasetherapeutics.com. Any information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, nor is it in any way part of this Form 10-K.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and we have an Internet website address at www.neubasetherapeutics.com. We make available free of charge on our Internet website address our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as our proxy statements as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. You may also obtain copies of such documents from the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Summary of Risk Factors

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC before making an investment decision regarding our common stock.

Risk Factors

We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations, and you should carefully consider them. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, we encourage you to consider the following discussion of risk factors, in its entirety, in addition to other information contained in this Form 10-K and our other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Company

We are a preclinical-stage company, have a very limited operating history, are not currently profitable, do not expect to become profitable in the near future and may never become profitable.

We are a preclinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in the discovery and development of a class of deoxy-ribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid-targeting drugs called peptide nucleic acids or anti-genes, which did not change as a result of the merger between Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ohr”), and NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Legacy NeuBase”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019 (the “Merger Agreement”). Since our incorporation, we have focused primarily on the development of our proprietary Peptide-nucleic acid AnTisense OLigo (“PATrOL™”) platform and preclinical-stage therapeutic candidates. Our platform technology and all of our therapeutic candidates are in the preclinical development stage, and we have not initiated clinical trials for any of our product candidates, nor have any products been approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue. To date, we have not completed a clinical trial (including a pivotal clinical trial), obtained marketing approval for any product candidates, manufactured a commercial scale product or arranged for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Drug development is also a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk.

As a result, we have no meaningful historical operations upon which to evaluate our business and prospects and have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates or successfully overcome the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the pharmaceutical industry. We also have not generated any revenues from collaboration and licensing agreements or product sales to date and continue to incur research and development and other expenses. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital, and our future success is subject to significant uncertainty.

For the foreseeable future, we expect to continue to incur losses, which we expect will increase significantly from recent historical levels as we expand our drug development activities, seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and begin to commercialize them if they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) or comparable foreign authorities. Even if we succeed in developing and commercializing one or more product candidates, we may never become profitable.

The approach we are taking to discover and develop nucleic acid therapeutics is novel and may never lead to marketable products.

We have concentrated our efforts and research and development activities on nucleic acid therapeutics and our synthetic chemistry drug discovery and development platform comprised of peptide nucleic acids with natural and engineered nucleotides and targeting technology. Our future success depends on the successful development and manufacturing of such therapeutics and the effectiveness of our platform. The scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop new drugs, including our discoveries about the relationships between oligonucleotide stereochemistry and pharmacology, are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing drugs based on these discoveries or peptide nucleic acids (“PNAs”) in general is limited. Skepticism as to the feasibility of developing nucleic acid therapeutics and PNAs generally has been, and may continue to be, expressed in scientific literature. In addition, decisions by, and negative results of, other companies with respect to their oligonucleotide development efforts may increase skepticism in the marketplace regarding the potential for oligonucleotides and PNAs.

Relatively few nucleic acid therapeutic product candidates have been tested in humans, and a number of clinical trials for such therapeutics conducted by other companies have not been successful. Few nucleic acid therapeutics have received regulatory approval. The pharmacological properties ascribed to the investigational compounds we are testing in laboratory studies may not be positively demonstrated in clinical trials in patients, and they may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. If our nucleic acid product candidates prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire platform and pipeline would have little, if any, value, which would substantially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, our approach, which focuses on using nucleic acid therapeutics for drug development, as opposed to multiple or other, more advanced proven technologies, may expose us to additional development and financial risks and make it more difficult to raise additional capital if we are not successful in developing a nucleic acid therapeutic that is timely and cost effective to manufacture and achieves proof of concept in animal models, desired tissue distribution, selectivity for the target, and/or regulatory approval. Because our programs are all in the preclinical stage, we have not yet been able to assess safety in humans, and there may be long-term effects from treatment with any product candidates that we develop using our platform that we cannot predict at this time. Any product candidates the Company may develop will act at the level of deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) or ribonucleic acid (“RNA”), and because animal DNA and RNA often differs from human DNA or RNA at the sequence level, in its regulation and degradation, secondary and tertiary structural conformations and ultimately in being translated into proteins with varying amino acid sequences conformations and functions, testing of our product candidates in animal models may not be predictive of the results we observe in human clinical trials of our product candidates for either safety or efficacy. Also, animal models may not exist for some of the diseases we choose to pursue in our programs. As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our gene silencing technology, or any similar or competitive gene silencing technologies, will result in the identification, development and regulatory approval of any products. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our gene silencing technology or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. Should we encounter development problems, including unfavorable preclinical or clinical trial results, the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities may refuse to approve our product candidates, or may require additional information, tests or trials, which could significantly delay product development and significantly increase our development costs. Moreover, even if we are able to provide the requested information or trials to the FDA, there would be no guarantee that the FDA would accept them or approve our product candidates. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or developing or qualifying and validating product release assays, other testing and manufacturing methods, and our equipment and facilities in a timely manner, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate or from commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

We are highly dependent on the success of our initial product candidates targeting rare genetic diseases and our platform technology in general, and we cannot be certain that any of them will receive regulatory approval or be commercialized.

We have spent time, money and effort on the licensing and development of our core asset: our PATrOL™ platform. To date, we have not submitted an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) to the FDA, and no clinical trials have commenced for any of our product candidates. All of our product candidates will require additional development, including further preclinical studies and bioanalytic method development as well as clinical trials to evaluate their toxicology, carcinogenicity and pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and optimize their formulation, and receive regulatory clearances before they can be commercialized. Positive results obtained during early development do not necessarily mean later development will succeed or that regulatory clearances will be obtained. Our drug development efforts may not lead to commercial drugs, either because our product candidates or our PATrOL™ platform are not deemed safe and effective, because of competitive or market forces, intellectual property issues or because we have inadequate financial or other resources to advance our product candidates through the clinical development and approval processes. If any of our product candidates, or our PATrOL™ platform, fail to demonstrate safety or efficacy at any time or during any phase of development, we would experience potentially significant delays in, or be required to abandon, development of the product candidate.

We do not anticipate that any of our current product candidates will be eligible to receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities and begin commercialization for a number of years, if ever. Even if we ultimately receive regulatory approval for any of these product candidates, we or our potential future partners, if any, may be unable to commercialize them successfully for a variety of reasons. These include, for example, the availability of alternative treatments, lack of cost-effectiveness, the cost of manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and competition with other drugs. The success of our product candidates and our PATrOL™ platform may also be limited by the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects. If we fail to commercialize one or more of our current product candidates, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to attain or maintain profitability, and our financial condition may decline.

If development of our candidates does not produce favorable results, we and our collaborators, if any, may be unable to commercialize these products.

To receive regulatory approval for the commercialization of the PATrOL™ platform, or any product candidates that we may develop, adequate and well-controlled clinical trials must be conducted to demonstrate safety and efficacy in humans to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities. In order to support marketing approval, these agencies typically require successful results in one or more Phase III clinical trials, which our current product candidates have not yet reached and may never reach. The development process is expensive, can take many years and has an uncertain outcome. Failure can occur at any stage of the process. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the development process that could delay or prevent commercialization of our current or future product candidates, including the following:

Additionally, because our technology potentially involves mutation silencing via genome binding and/or editing across multiple cell and tissue types, we are subject to many of the challenges and risks that advanced therapies, such as gene therapies, face, including:

Success in early development does not mean that later development will be successful because, for example, product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy despite having progressed through initial clinical trials.

Furthermore, we have licensed or acquired virtually all of the intellectual property related to our product candidates from Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”). Much of our preclinical studies and other analyses performed to date with respect to our product candidates have been conducted by their original owners or collaborators. Therefore, as a company, we have limited experience in conducting research on our platform technology and preclinical trials for our product candidates. Since our experience with our platform technology and product candidates is limited, we will need to train our existing personnel or hire additional personnel in order to successfully administer and manage our preclinical studies and clinical trials as anticipated, which may result in delays in completing such anticipated preclinical trials and clinical studies.

We currently do not have strategic collaborations in place for clinical development of our platform technology and any of our current product candidates. Therefore, in the future, we or any potential future collaborative partner will be responsible for establishing the targeted endpoints and goals for development of our product candidates. These targeted endpoints and goals may be inadequate to demonstrate the safety and efficacy levels required for regulatory approvals. Even if we believe data collected during the development of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support marketing approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities.

Further, data generated during development can be interpreted in different ways, and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may interpret such data in different ways than we or our collaborators. Our failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our platform technology and any of our product candidates would prevent our receipt of regulatory approval, and such failure would ultimately prevent the potential commercialization of these product candidates.

Since we do not currently possess the resources necessary to independently develop and commercialize our product candidates or any other product candidates that we may develop, we may seek to enter into collaborative agreements to assist in the development and potential future commercialization of some or all of these assets as a component of our strategic plan. Our discussions with potential collaborators, however, may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all, or it may take longer than expected to establish new collaborations, leading to development and potential commercialization delays, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect to continue to incur significant research and development expenses, which may make it difficult for us to attain profitability.

We expect to expend substantial funds in research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials for our platform technology and product candidates, and to manufacture and market any product candidates in the event they are approved for commercial sale. We will likely need additional funding to develop or acquire complementary companies, technologies and assets, as well as for working capital requirements and other operating and general corporate purposes. Moreover, an increase in our headcount would dramatically increase our costs in the near and long-term.

Such spending may not yield any commercially viable products. Due to our limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

Because the successful development of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to precisely estimate the actual funds we will require to develop and potentially commercialize them. In addition, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue, even if we are able to commercialize any of our product candidates, to become profitable.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we will initially develop our lead product candidates for particular rare genetic diseases. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities in other types of diseases that may prove to have greater treatment potential. Likewise, we may forego or delay the pursuit of opportunities with other potential product candidates that may prove to have greater commercial potential.

Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other similar arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

Given our lack of current cash flow, we will need to raise additional capital to achieve our goals; however, it may be unavailable to us or, even if capital is obtained, may cause dilution or place significant restrictions on our ability to operate our business.

Since we will be unable to generate sufficient, if any, cash flow to fund our operations for the foreseeable future, we will need to seek additional equity or debt financing to provide the capital required to maintain or expand our operations.

We believe that our existing balance of cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months from the date this Form 10-K is filed with the SEC, and ideally into the first calendar quarter of 2022. In particular, we expect that these funds will allow us to achieve certain preclinical milestones for our NT0100 program for HD and our NT0200 program for DM1, but we expect that we will need to obtain additional funding to obtain clinical data from the programs. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our operating plans and other demands on our cash resources may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other capital sources, including potentially collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to raise sufficient additional capital on acceptable terms or at all. If such additional financing is not available on satisfactory terms, or is not available in sufficient amounts, we may be required to delay, limit or eliminate the development of business opportunities, and our ability to achieve our business objectives, our competitiveness, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. Furthermore, we will not be able to access the capital markets as quickly due to our non-timely filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019 and the loss of our eligibility to file a new registration statement on Form S-3 that would allow us to continuously incorporate by reference our Exchange Act reports filed with the SEC into such registration statement, or to use new “shelf” registration statements to conduct offerings, until approximately one year from the date we regain and maintain status as a timely filer, which is expected to be April 1, 2021. In addition, we may be required to grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Our inability to fund our business could lead to the loss of your investment.

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

Any additional capital efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. Moreover, if we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, the percentage ownership of our existing stockholders may be reduced, and accordingly these stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may also issue equity securities that provide for rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of our common stock.

Given our need for cash and that equity issuances are the most common type of fundraising for similarly situated companies, the risk of dilution is particularly significant for our stockholders. Furthermore, the incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

Our efforts to discover product candidates beyond our current product candidates may not succeed, and any product candidates we recommend for clinical development may not actually begin clinical trials.

We intend to use our technology, including our licensed technology, knowledge and expertise, to develop novel drug candidates to address some of the world’s most devastating and costly central nervous system, muscular, and other disorders, including orphan genetic and oncology indications. We intend to expand our existing pipeline of core assets by advancing drug candidate compounds from discovery programs into preclinical and clinical development. However, the process of researching and discovering drug candidate compounds is expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable. Data from our current preclinical programs may not support the clinical development of our lead compounds or other compounds from these programs, and we may not identify any additional drug compounds suitable for recommendation for clinical development. Moreover, any drug compounds we recommend for clinical development may not demonstrate, through preclinical studies, indications of safety and potential efficacy that would support advancement into clinical trials. Such findings would potentially impede our ability to maintain or expand our clinical development pipeline. Our ability to identify new drug compounds and advance them into clinical development also depends upon our ability to fund our research and development operations, and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all.

We are significantly dependent on the success of our PATrOL™ platform and our product candidates based on this platform. A failure of any product candidate based on this platform in clinical development would adversely affect our business and may require us to discontinue development of other product candidates based on the same therapeutic approach.

We have invested, and we expect to continue to invest, significant efforts and financial resources in the development of product candidates based on our PATrOL™ platform. Our ability to generate meaningful revenue, which may not occur for the foreseeable future, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of one or more of these product candidates using our PATrOL™ platform. We will not be able to develop new product candidates if it is found that the PATrOL™ platform does not work or creates product candidates that are not safe for use in humans. Since all of our product candidates in our current pipeline are based on our PATrOL™ platform, if any product candidate fails in development as a result of an underlying problem with our PATrOL™ platform, then we may be required to discontinue development of all product candidates that are based on our therapeutic approach. If we were required to discontinue the development of such product candidates based on the PATrOL™ platform, or if any of them were to fail to receive regulatory approval or achieve sufficient market acceptance, we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability. We can provide no assurance that we would be successful at developing other product candidates based on an alternative therapeutic approach from our PATrOL™ platform.

The pharmaceutical market and biotechnology industry are intensely competitive and involve a high degree of risk. If we are unable to compete effectively with existing drugs, new treatment methods and new technologies, we may be unable to commercialize successfully any drug candidates that we develop.

The pharmaceutical market and biotechnology industry are intensely competitive and rapidly changing. Many large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations, both in the U.S. and worldwide, are pursuing the development of novel drugs for the same diseases that we are targeting or expect to target. Many of our competitors have, either alone or with strategic partners:

We will face intense competition from drugs that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community for the treatment of the conditions for which we may develop drug candidates. We also expect to face competition from new drugs that enter the market. We believe there are a significant number of drugs currently under development that may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may try to develop drugs. These drugs may be more effective, safer, less expensive, introduced to market earlier, or marketed and sold more effectively or on a more cost-effective basis, than any product candidates we develop. It is possible that the potential advantages of PATrOL™-derived therapeutic candidates (including, among other potential advantages, the ability to systemically deliver drugs and get broad tissue distribution and penetration across the blood-brain barrier, minimal to no innate or adaptive immune responses after single dose or multiple-dose administration, preferential selectivity to mutant targets, and dose schedules to address the disease appropriately or that is viable in the marketplace) do not materialize.

Our competitors may develop or commercialize products with significant advantages over any product candidates we are able to develop and commercialize based on many different factors, including:

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are viewed as safer, more effective, more convenient or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their competing products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for any of our product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Further, we expect that we will also compete with others when recruiting clinical trial sites and subjects for our clinical trials and when recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel.

While there are currently no approved treatments available to slow the progression of Huntington’s Disease or Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1, publicly available information shows that a number of companies are pursuing product candidates seeking to address the root cause of these indications. These include an investigational drug in Phase III clinical development for HD, and several ongoing clinical and preclinical programs targeting the underlying disease and symptoms in HD and DM1. The success of any of these competitors could reduce or eliminate our commercial opportunity.

Any collaboration arrangement that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our current and potential future product candidates.

We may seek collaboration arrangements with pharmaceutical companies for the development or commercialization of our current and potential future product candidates. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, execute and implement. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements should we choose to enter into such arrangements, and the terms of the arrangements may not be favorable to us. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. As such, our inability to control our collaborators, and the potentially adverse results of our collaborators, may materially and adversely affect our product candidates and, more generally, our PATrOL™ platform, and we may not be able to conduct our program in the manner or on the time schedule it currently contemplates, which could negatively impact our business.

If our potential future collaborations do not result in the successful discovery, development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates our agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our platform technology and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our technology.

Finally, disagreements between parties to a collaboration arrangement can lead to delays in developing or commercializing the applicable product candidate and can be difficult to resolve in a mutually beneficial manner. In some cases, collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies and other third parties are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We, or any future collaborators, may not be able to obtain orphan drug designation or orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S. In the U.S. and Europe, obtaining orphan drug approval may allow us to obtain financial incentives, such as an extended period of exclusivity during which only we are allowed to market the orphan drug for the orphan indications that we are developing. While we may seek orphan drug designation from the FDA for any of our product candidates, we, or any future collaborators, may not be granted orphan drug designations for our product candidates in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions.

Even if we or any future collaborators obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we or such collaborators may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. Generally, a product with orphan drug designation only becomes entitled to orphan drug exclusivity if it receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, in which case the FDA or the EMA will be precluded from approving another marketing application for the same drug for that indication for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable exclusivity period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or the EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we or any future collaborators obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because FDA has taken the position that, under certain circumstances, another drug with the same active chemical and pharmacological characteristics, or moiety, can be approved for the same condition. Specifically, the FDA’s regulations provide that it can approve another drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Our operations have been adversely affected by the coronavirus outbreak, and we face risks that could impact our business.

A novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The virus has spread globally and includes a significant number of cases in the U.S., Europe and Asia. We have relationships with contract research organizations to conduct certain pre-clinical programs and testing and other services in Europe and certain of those business operations have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are further subject to potential business interruptions arising from new protective measures that may be taken by the governmental or other agencies or governing bodies. We also conduct limited operations within Asia through third-party contract manufacturing organizations whose operations have been and may continue to be negatively affected by the coronavirus outbreak. In addition, certain of our collaborative relationships with academic research institutions in the United States have been and may continue to be materially and adversely impacted by protective measures taken by those institutions or federal and state agencies and governing bodies to restrict access to, or suspend operations at, such facilities. Such protective measures, including quarantines, travel restrictions and business shutdowns, have impacted and may continue to negatively affect our core operations. We have taken precautionary measures aligned with CDC, state and local guidelines that are intended to help minimize the risk of the virus to our employees, including the provision of personal protective equipment, suspension of non-essential travel worldwide for our employees, and we discourage employee attendance at other gatherings. Several of our employees work remotely. Business disruptions elsewhere in the world could also negatively affect the sources and availability of components and materials that are essential to the operation of our business.

Extended periods of interruption to our U.S. operations or those of our contract research and manufacturing organizations due to the coronavirus outbreak could adversely impact the growth of our business and could cause us to cease or delay operations. For example, one of our external contract research providers, was forced to shut down its vivarium where the in vivo testing for the NT0100 program was ongoing, and this disruption in operations contributed to a delay and may also incur additional future delays in that program. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party facility and establish a contractual relationship in connection with such facilities, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms that would cause additional delay and increased expense, including as a result of additional required FDA approvals, and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

The extent to which the coronavirus impacts our business and results of operations will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted. This includes new information that may emerge concerning the severity of the coronavirus, the spread and proliferation of the coronavirus around the world, and the actions taken to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.

We are subject to a multitude of manufacturing risks, any of which could substantially increase our costs and limit supply of our product candidates.

The process of manufacturing our product candidates is complex, highly regulated, and subject to several risks. For example, the process of manufacturing our product candidates is extremely susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, low yielding processes, or vendor or operator error. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes for any of our product candidates could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. In addition, the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made could be adversely affected by equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, public health crises, pandemics and epidemics, such as a novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19), power failures and numerous other factors. For instance, our therapeutic molecules are complex and comprised of both peptides and nucleic acids, and it may be difficult or impossible to find Good Laboratory Practice- (“GLP”) and Current Good Manufacturing Practice- (“cGMP”) grade manufacturers, manufacturing may be cost prohibitive, we or our third-party manufacturers may not be able to manufacture product candidates in a timely manner or within specification, or manufacturing may not be available to fulfill regulatory requirements. In addition, we or our third-party manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product candidates at the necessary scale to meet our development and commercialization requirements.

In addition, any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We also may need to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for product candidates that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek costlier manufacturing alternatives.

We rely, and will continue to rely, predominantly, on third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels, prices, or timelines.

We have the capability internally to manufacture small quantities of our drugs for preclinical studies. However, we do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our clinical drug supplies for use in our clinical trials, and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our product candidates, and there may be a need to identify alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and, if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Any significant delay or discontinuity in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to develop our own commercial organization or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may be unable to generate significant revenues.

We do not have a sales and marketing organization, and we have no experience as a company in the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may be required to develop our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or make arrangements with a third party to perform sales and marketing services. Developing a sales force for any resulting product or any product resulting from any of our other product candidates is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. We may be unable to establish and manage an effective sales force in a timely or cost-effective manner, if at all, and any sales force we do establish may not be capable of generating sufficient demand for our product candidates. To the extent that we enter into arrangements with collaborators or other third parties to perform sales and marketing services, our product revenues are likely to be lower than if we marketed and sold our product candidates independently. If we are unable to establish adequate sales and marketing capabilities, independently or with others, we may not be able to generate significant revenues and may not become profitable.

The commercial success of our product candidates depends upon their market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community.

Even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval, our products, if any, may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

In addition, the potential market opportunity for our product candidates is difficult to precisely estimate. Our estimates of the potential market opportunity for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. Independent sources have not verified all of our assumptions. If any of these assumptions proves to be inaccurate, then the actual market for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of our potential market opportunity. If the actual market for our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited, it may be harder than expected to raise funds and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability. If we fail to achieve market acceptance of our product candidates in the U.S. and abroad, our revenue will be limited, and it will be more difficult to achieve profitability.

If we fail to obtain and sustain an adequate level of reimbursement for our potential products by third-party payors, potential future sales would be materially adversely affected.

There will be no viable commercial market for our product candidates, if approved, without reimbursement from third-party payors. Reimbursement policies may be affected by future healthcare reform measures. We cannot be certain that reimbursement will be available for our current product candidates or any other product candidate we may develop. Additionally, even if there is a viable commercial market, if the level of reimbursement is below our expectations, our anticipated revenue and gross margins will be adversely affected.

Third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and increasingly question and challenge the coverage of and the prices charged for drugs. Reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies vary depending on the company, the insurance plan and other factors. Reimbursement rates may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. There is a current trend in the U.S. healthcare industry toward cost containment.

Large public and private payors, managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations and similar organizations are exerting increasing influence on decisions regarding the use of, and reimbursement levels for, particular treatments. Such third-party payors, including Medicare, may question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit coverage of or reimbursement for newly approved healthcare products. In particular, third-party payors may limit the covered indications. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products, which could result in product revenues being lower than anticipated. We believe our drugs will be priced significantly higher than existing generic drugs and consistent with current branded drugs. If we are unable to show a significant benefit relative to existing generic drugs, Medicare, Medicaid and private payors may not be willing to provide reimbursement for our drugs, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of our products gaining market acceptance.

We expect that private insurers will consider the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety and tolerability of our product candidates in determining whether to approve reimbursement for such product candidates and at what level. Obtaining these approvals can be a time consuming and expensive process. Our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected if we do not receive approval for reimbursement of our product candidates from private insurers on a timely or satisfactory basis. Limitations on coverage could also be imposed at the local Medicare carrier level or by fiscal intermediaries. Medicare Part B, which covers medical insurance to Medicare patients as discussed below, does not require participating insurance plans to cover all drugs that have been approved by the FDA. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if Part B medical insurance were to limit access to, or deny or limit reimbursement of, our product candidates.

Reimbursement systems in international markets vary significantly by country and by region, and reimbursement approvals must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. In many countries, the product candidate cannot be commercially launched until reimbursement is approved. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. The negotiation process in some countries can exceed 12 months. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies.

If the prices for our product candidates are reduced or if governmental and other third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement of our drugs, our future revenue, cash flows and prospects for profitability will suffer.

We are exposed to product liability, non-clinical and clinical liability risks which could place a substantial financial burden upon us, should lawsuits be filed against us.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability and other liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical formulations and products. In addition, the use in our anticipated clinical trials of pharmaceutical products and the subsequent sale of product candidates by us, if approved, or our potential collaborators may cause us to bear a portion of or all product liability risks. A successful liability claim or series of claims brought against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because we do not currently have any clinical trials ongoing, we do not currently carry product liability insurance. We anticipate obtaining such insurance upon initiation of our clinical development activities; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could adversely affect our results of operations and business if judgments therewith exceed our insurance coverage.

If we fail to retain current members of our management, or to attract and keep additional key personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates.

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel. As of November 30, 2020, we had fifteen full-time employees. We will rely primarily on outsourcing research, development and clinical trial activities, and manufacturing operations, as well as other functions critical to our business. We believe this approach enhances our ability to focus on our core product opportunities, allocate resources efficiently to different projects and allocate internal resources more effectively. We have filled several key open positions and are currently recruiting for a few remaining positions. However, competition for qualified personnel is intense. We may not be successful in attracting qualified personnel to fulfill our current or future needs. In the event we are unable to fill critical open employment positions, we may need to delay our operational activities and goals, including the development of our product candidates, and may have difficulty in meeting our obligations as a public company. We do not maintain “key person” insurance on any of our employees.

In addition, competitors and others are likely in the future to attempt to recruit our employees. The loss of the services of any of our key personnel, the inability to attract or retain highly qualified personnel in the future or delays in hiring such personnel, particularly senior management and other technical personnel, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the replacement of key personnel likely would involve significant time and costs and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives.

From time to time, our management seeks the advice and guidance of certain scientific advisors and consultants regarding clinical and regulatory development programs and other customary matters. These scientific advisors and consultants are not our employees and may have commitments to, or consulting or advisory contracts with, other entities that may limit their availability to us. In addition, our scientific advisors may have arrangements with other companies to assist those companies in developing products or technologies that may compete with us.

We will need to increase the size of our organization and may not successfully manage our growth.

We are a preclinical-stage pharmaceutical company with a small number of employees, and our management systems currently in place are not likely to be adequate to support our future growth plans. Our ability to grow and to manage our growth effectively will require us to hire, train, retain, manage and motivate additional employees and to implement and improve our operational, financial and management systems. These demands also may require the hiring of additional senior management personnel or the development of additional expertise by our senior management personnel. Hiring a significant number of additional employees, particularly those at the management level, would increase our expenses significantly. Moreover, if we fail to expand and enhance our operational, financial and management systems in conjunction with our potential future growth, such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because our Chief Executive Officer is involved with several unaffiliated privately held companies, he may experience conflicts of interest and competing demands for his time and attention.

Dietrich Stephan, Ph.D., our Chief Executive Officer, is a member of the governing bodies of several unaffiliated privately held companies, as well as a general partner of Cyto Ventures. Although Dr. Stephan expects to devote substantially all of his time to us, he expects to continue in each of these positions for the foreseeable future. Conflicts of interest could arise with respect to business opportunities that could be advantageous to third party organizations affiliated with Dr. Stephan, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand.

The majority of our current management lacks public company experience, which could put us at greater risk of incurring fines or regulatory actions for failure to comply with federal securities laws and could put us at a competitive disadvantage and require our management to devote additional time and resources to ensure compliance with applicable corporate governance requirements.

The majority of our current executive management do not have experience in managing and operating a public company, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to quickly respond to problems or adequately address issues and matters applicable to public companies. Any failure to comply with federal securities laws, rules or regulations could subject us to fines or regulatory actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, since certain of our current executive officers do not have experience managing and operating a public company, we may need to dedicate additional time and resources to comply with legally mandated corporate governance policies relative to our competitors whose management teams have more public company experience.

We rely significantly on information technology and any failure, inadequacy, interruption or security lapse of that technology, including any cybersecurity incidents, could harm our ability to operate our business effectively.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of third parties with which we contract are vulnerable to damage from cyber-attacks, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. System failures, accidents or security breaches could cause interruptions in our operations and could result in a material disruption of our drug development and preclinical and clinical activities and business operations, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, suffer loss or harm to our intellectual property rights and the further research, development and commercial efforts of our products and product candidates could be delayed. The loss of drug development or clinical trial data could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and our development programs and the development of our product candidates could be delayed. In addition, if we are held liable for a claim against which we are not insured or for damages exceeding the limits of our insurance coverage, whether arising out of cybersecurity matters, or from some other matter, that claim could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our employees, consultants, third-party vendors and collaborators may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee, consultant, third-party vendor or collaborator fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by our employees, consultants, third-party vendors or collaborators could include, among other things, intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commissions, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee, consultant, vendor or collaborator misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of preclinical or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter such misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and result in the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions against us.

Business disruptions such as natural disasters could seriously harm our future revenues and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

We and our suppliers may experience a disruption in our and their business as a result of natural disasters. A significant natural disaster, such as an earthquake, hurricane, flood or fire, could severely damage or destroy our headquarters or facilities or the facilities of our manufacturers or suppliers, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, terrorist acts or acts of war targeted at the U.S., and specifically the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, greater New York, New York, and greater southern California regions, could cause damage or disruption to us, our employees, facilities, partners and suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may engage in strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.

From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as spin-offs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. Additional potential transactions that we may consider include a variety of different business arrangements, including acquisitions of companies, asset purchases and out-licensing or in-licensing of products, product candidates or technologies. Any such transaction may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, may increase our near- and long-term expenditures and may pose significant integration challenges or disrupt our management or business, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, these transactions may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:

Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The estimates and judgments we make, or the assumptions on which we rely, in preparing our financial statements could prove inaccurate.

Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of our assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, the amounts of charges accrued by us and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We cannot assure, however, that our estimates, or the assumptions underlying them, will not change over time or otherwise prove inaccurate. For example, our estimates as they relate to anticipated timelines and milestones for our preclinical development or clinical trials may prove to be inaccurate. If this is the case, we may be required to restate our financial statements, which could, in turn, subject us to securities class action litigation or regulatory investigation or action. Defending against such potential litigation or regulatory action relating to a restatement of our financial statements would be expensive and would require significant attention and resources of our management. Moreover, our insurance to cover our obligations with respect to the ultimate resolution of any such litigation or regulatory action may be inadequate. As a result of these factors, any such potential litigation or regulatory action could have a material adverse effect on our financial results or harm our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark and trade secret protection of our proprietary technologies and our product candidates, their respective components, formulations, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in issued patents that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part. In addition, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technologies.

In the future we may, and presently do, in-license intellectual property from licensors. We may rely on these licensors to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be in-licensed. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

The growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire or in-license additional proprietary rights. For example, our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties. Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently. These formulations may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may develop products containing our compounds and pre-existing pharmaceutical compounds. These pharmaceutical compounds may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to provide a companion diagnostic test or tests with our product candidates. These diagnostic test or tests may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license under such intellectual property rights, any such license may be non-exclusive, which may allow our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Because several of our programs currently require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to maintain and exploit these proprietary rights. In addition, we may need to acquire or in-license additional intellectual property in the future. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. We face competition with regard to acquiring and in-licensing third-party intellectual property rights, including from a number of more established companies. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license intellectual property rights to us. We also may be unable to acquire or in-license third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow it to make an appropriate return on our investment, and we may not be able to market products or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents.

We may enter into collaboration agreements with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate development of our current or future preclinical product candidates. Typically, these agreements include an option for the company to negotiate a license to the institution’s intellectual property rights resulting from the collaboration. Even with such an option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to license rights from a collaborating institution, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our desired program.

If we are unable to successfully obtain required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain our existing intellectual property rights, we may need to abandon development of the related program and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient patent and other intellectual property protection for our product candidates and technology, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market or successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. We will only be able to protect our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets cover them. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Composition-of-matter patents on the active pharmaceutical ingredient are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. Method-of-use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our products for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method-of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability, inventorship, or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our drug discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we in-license intellectual property and other rights from third parties or otherwise experiences disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.

Our license agreement with CMU (the “CMU License Agreement”), as the licensor (the “Licensor”), is important to our business, and we expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. The CMU License Agreement imposes, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various royalties, sublicensing fees and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or if we file for bankruptcy, we may be required to make certain payments to the Licensor, we may lose the exclusivity of our license, or the Licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market products covered by the license. Additionally, the royalties and other payments associated with these licenses could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Pursuant to the terms of the CMU License Agreement, the Licensor has the right to terminate the CMU License Agreement with respect to the program licensed under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (i) if we do not pay amounts when due and within the applicable cure periods or (ii) if we file or have filed against us a petition in bankruptcy or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors. In the event the CMU License Agreement is terminated by the Licensor, all licenses (or, in the determination of the Licensor, the exclusivity of such licenses) granted to us by the Licensor will terminate immediately.

In some cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology may be controlled solely by the licensor. If our licensor fails to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we in-license, then we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, and our competitors could market competing products using the intellectual property. In certain cases, we may control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including, but not limited to:

If disputes over intellectual property and other rights that we have in-licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. If we fail to comply with any such obligations to our licensor, such licensor may terminate their licenses to us, in which case we would not be able to market products covered by these licenses. The loss of our licenses would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be required to pay royalties and sublicensing fees pursuant to the CMU License Agreement, which could adversely affect the overall profitability for us of any product candidates that we may seek to commercialize.

Under the terms of the CMU License Agreement, we will be required to pay royalties on future worldwide net product sales and a percentage of sublicensing fees that we may earn. These royalty payments and sublicensing fees could adversely affect the overall profitability for us of any product candidates that we may seek to commercialize.

We may not be able to protect our proprietary or licensed technology in the marketplace.

We depend on our ability to protect our proprietary or licensed technology. We rely on trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark laws, and confidentiality, licensing and other agreements with employees and third parties, all of which offer only limited protection. Our success depends in large part on our ability and any licensor’s or licensee’s ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our proprietary or licensed technology and product candidates. We currently in-license some of our intellectual property rights to develop our product candidates and may in-license additional intellectual property rights in the future. We cannot be certain that patent enforcement activities by our current or future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. We also cannot be certain that our current or future licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are compelled to spend significant time and money protecting or enforcing our licensed patents and future patents we may own, designing around patents held by others or licensing or acquiring, potentially for large fees, patents or other proprietary rights held by others, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. If we are unable to effectively protect the intellectual property that we own or in-license, other companies may be able to offer the same or similar products for sale, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The patents of others from whom we may license technology, and any future patents we may own, may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing the same or similar products or limit the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection for licensed patents, licensed pending patent applications and potential future patent applications and patents could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and various governmental patent agencies outside of the U.S. in several stages over the lifetime of the applicable patent and/or patent application. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If this occurs with respect to our in-licensed patents or patent applications we may file in the future, our competitors might be able to use our technologies, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which many legal principles remain unresolved. In recent years patent rights have been the subject of significant litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued in the United States or in other jurisdictions which protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, might require that the term of a patent issuing from a pending patent application be disclaimed and limited to the term of another patent that is commonly owned or names a common inventor. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in the patent claims of our owned or in-licensed patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part. This result could limit our ability to stop or prevent us from stopping others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate. 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 patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours or otherwise provide us with a competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

• others may be able to make or use compounds that are similar to the pharmaceutical compounds used in our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of our patents;

• the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our current product candidates will eventually become commercially available in generic drug products, and no patent protection may be available with regard to formulation or method of use;

• we or our licensors, as the case may be, may fail to meet our obligations to the U.S. government in regards to any in-licensed patents and patent applications funded by U.S. government grants, leading to the loss of patent rights;

• we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions;

• others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies;

• it is possible that our pending patent applications will not result in issued patents;

• it is possible that there are prior public disclosures that could invalidate our patents, as the case may be, or parts of our or their patents;

• it is possible that others may circumvent our patents;

• it is possible that there are unpublished patent applications maintained in secrecy that may later issue with claims covering our products or technology similar to ours;

• the laws of foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States;

• the claims of our issued patents or patent applications, if and when issued, may not cover our product candidates;

• our patents may not provide us with any competitive advantages, may be narrowed in scope, or be held invalid or unenforceable as a result of legal challenges by third parties;

• the inventors of our patents or patent applications may become involved with competitors, develop products or processes which design around our patents, or become hostile to us or the patents or patent applications on which they are named as inventors;

• collaborators may develop adjacent or competing products to ours that are outside the scope of our patents;

• we may not develop additional proprietary technologies for which we can obtain patent protection;

• it is possible that product candidates or diagnostic tests we develop may be covered by third parties’ patents or other exclusive rights; or

• the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.

Patents that we currently license and patents that we may own or license in the future do not necessarily ensure the protection of our licensed or owned intellectual property for a number of reasons, including, without limitation, the following:

If we encounter delays in our development or clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our potential products under patent protection would be reduced.

Our competitors may be able to circumvent our licensed patents or future patents we may own by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting abbreviated new drug applications to the FDA in which our competitors claim that our licensed patents or any future patents we may own are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Alternatively, our competitors may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our licensed patents or any future patents we may own, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our licensed patents or any future patents we may own invalid or unenforceable. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Even if we own or in-license valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

We also may rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect, and we have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our collaborators and suppliers. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our information to competitors or use such information to compete with us. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. If our confidential or proprietary information is divulged to or acquired by third parties, including our competitors, our competitive position in the marketplace will be harmed and this would have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

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

We may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which may prevent or delay our drug development efforts and prevent us from commercializing or increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. For example, there could be issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe. We have licensed intellectual property from CMU under the CMU License Agreement, and prior generation intellectual property was licensed to other entities. Such intellectual property, in conjunction with further developed technologies for gene editing therapies using such intellectual property, may overlap with our own intellectual property.

As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that others may assert our product candidates infringe the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. Furthermore, because the nucleic acid therapeutics intellectual property landscape is still evolving and our product candidates have not been through clinical trials or commercialized, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing third party rights. There are numerous companies that have pending patent applications and issued patents directed to certain aspects of nucleic acid therapeutics. We are aware of third-party competitors in the oligonucleotide therapeutics space, whose patent filings and/or issued patents may include claims directed to targets and/or products related to some of our programs. It is possible that at the time that we commercialize our products these third-party patent portfolios may include issued patent claims that cover our product candidates or critical features of their production or use. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third-party intellectual property rights cover, or may be alleged to cover, our product candidates or elements thereof, or methods of manufacture or use relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize product candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms.

Moreover, patent applications are in some cases maintained in secrecy until patents are issued. The publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature frequently occurs substantially later than the date on which the underlying discoveries were made and patent applications were filed. Because patents can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or potential products infringe. For example, pending applications may exist that claim or can be amended to claim subject matter that our product candidates or potential products infringe. Competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates. We cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our issued patents or our pending applications, or that we were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us for patent or other intellectual property infringement. These lawsuits are costly and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, potential products or methods either do not infringe the claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the U.S., proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. If a court holds that any third-party patents are valid, enforceable and cover our products or their use, the holders of any of these patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our products unless it acquires or obtains a license under the applicable patents or until the patents expire.

If a third party claims that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to: infringement and other intellectual property claims which, regardless of merit, may be expensive and time-consuming to litigate and may divert our management’s attention from our core business; substantial damages for infringement, which we may have to pay if a court decides that the product candidate or technology at issue infringes on or violates the third party’s rights, and, if the court finds that the infringement was willful, we could be ordered to pay treble damages and the patent owner’s attorneys’ fees; a court prohibiting us from developing, manufacturing, marketing or selling our product candidates, or from using our proprietary technologies, unless the third party licenses its product rights to us, which it is not required to do; if a license is available from a third party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, upfront fees and other amounts, and/or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our products; and redesigning our product candidates or processes so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time.

We may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-exam, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the EPO, or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

We may not be able to enter into licensing arrangements or make other arrangements at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms. Any inability to secure licenses or alternative technology could result in delays in the introduction of our product candidates or lead to prohibition of the manufacture or sale of products by us. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product candidate. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently. These formulations may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may develop products containing our compounds and pre-existing pharmaceutical compounds. These pharmaceutical compounds may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to provide a companion diagnostic test or tests with our product candidates. These diagnostic test or tests may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations.

We, or our licensors, may not be able to detect infringement against our owned or in-licensed patents, as the case may be, which may be especially difficult for manufacturing processes or formulation patents. Even if we or our licensors detect infringement by a third party of our owned or in-licensed patents, we or our licensors, as the case may be, may choose not to pursue litigation against or settlement with the third party. If we, or our licensors, later sue such third party for patent infringement, the third party may have certain legal defenses available to it, which otherwise would not be available except for the delay between when the infringement was first detected and when the suit was brought. Such legal defenses may make it impossible for us or our licensors to enforce our owned or in-licensed patents, as the case may be, against such third party.

Any claims or lawsuits relating to infringement of intellectual property rights brought by or against us will be costly and time consuming and may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or other violations, we may be required to initiate litigation to enforce or defend our licensed and owned intellectual property. Lawsuits to protect our intellectual property rights can be very time consuming and costly. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry generally. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating expenses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

In any infringement litigation, any award of monetary damages we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are resolved. Further, any claims we assert against a perceived infringer could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we have infringed their patents. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of the patents we assert is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to prevent the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In such a case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such marks.

In addition, our licensed patents and patent applications, and patents and patent applications that we may apply for, own or license in the future, could face other challenges, such as interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, re-examination proceedings and other forms of post-grant review. Any of these challenges, if successful, could result in the invalidation of, or in a narrowing of the scope of, any of our licensed patents and patent applications and patents and patent applications that we may apply for, own or license in the future subject to challenge. Any of these challenges, regardless of their success, would likely be time-consuming and expensive to defend and resolve and would divert our management and scientific personnel’s time and attention.

Any issued patents we may own covering our product candidates could be narrowed or found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, including the USPTO.

Any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged or invalidated despite measures we take to obtain patent and other intellectual property protection with respect to our product candidates and proprietary technology. For example, if we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S. and in some other jurisdictions, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information from the USPTO or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable.

With respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, for example, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on a product candidate. Even if a defendant does not prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, our patent claims may be construed in a manner that would limit our ability to enforce such claims against the defendant and others. The cost of defending such a challenge, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and any resulting loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on one or more of our product candidates and our business. Enforcing our intellectual property rights against third parties may also cause such third parties to file other counterclaims against us, which could be costly to defend, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and could require us to pay substantial damages, cease the sale of certain products or enter into a license agreement and pay royalties (which may not be possible on commercially reasonable terms or at all). Any efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights are also likely to be costly and may divert the efforts of our scientific and management personnel.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our ownership of our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our licensed and owned technologies in jurisdictions where we have not licensed or obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain or license patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents, and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our licensed patents and future patents we may own, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our licensed and owned intellectual property both in the U.S. and abroad. For example, China currently affords less protection to a company’s intellectual property than some other jurisdictions. As such, the lack of strong patent and other intellectual property protection in China may significantly increase our vulnerability regarding unauthorized disclosure or use of our intellectual property and undermine our competitive position. Proceedings to enforce our future patent rights, if any, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

We may be unable to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary and licensed technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our corporate partners, employees, consultants, manufacturers, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of our confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.

We expect to employ individuals who were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims against us, we may be subject to claims that us or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees.

We may become involved in disputes with our employees, consultants, or independent contractors regarding the ownership of intellectual property.

We will rely on our employees, consultants, and independent contractors to develop intellectual property that we will own and commercialize. These persons may dispute the terms of their agreements with us, for example, their obligation to assign intellectual property, work product, and know how to us. In case of such a dispute, the person may assert that he owns the work that he performed on our behalf, and that all corresponding intellectual property rights vest in him. The person may assert ownership of the intellectual property, refuse to disclose the intellectual property to us, and fail to execute documents essential to document our ownership. If the person withholds the disclosure of new technology, we may not even know what technology has been withheld from us, or that the technology even exists. In this case, we may never be able to identify and perfect title to the technology. Such a person would pose a significant risk of disclosure of our confidential intellectual property. If the person chose to reveal the technology to a third party, we may have no means or opportunity to prevent the disclosure. Our confidential intellectual property would then become known to third parties, possibly even without us knowing about the disclosure. We would suffer material adverse effects from the disclosure and misuse of our intellectual property. To enforce our rights would require a complex dispute of state and federal intellectual property law to take place in a state court. The outcome of such a dispute in a state court, especially in a jury trial, is highly uncertain.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or at all.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union and certain other countries. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

We are very early in our development efforts. All of our product candidates are still in preclinical development. If we are unable to advance our product candidates to clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are very early in our development efforts, and all of our product candidates are still in preclinical development. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the identification and preclinical development of PATrOL-enabled therapies, including the development programs for the treatment of Huntington’s Disease and Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any products, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. In addition, certain of our product candidate development programs contemplate the development of companion diagnostics, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation as medical devices and must themselves be approved for marketing by the FDA or certain other foreign regulatory agencies before we may commercialize our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Furthermore, the FDA has relatively limited experience with nucleic acid therapeutics, particularly PNAs, which may increase the complexity, uncertainty and length of the regulatory review process for our product candidates. To date, the FDA has approved few nucleic acid therapeutics for marketing and commercialization, and the FDA and our foreign counterparts have not yet established any definitive policies, practices or guidelines specifically in relation to these drugs. The lack of policies, practices or guidelines specific to nucleic acid therapeutics may hinder or slow review by the FDA of any regulatory filings that we may submit. Moreover, the FDA may respond to these submissions by defining requirements we may not have anticipated. Such responses could lead to significant delays in the development of our product candidates. In addition, because there may be approved treatments for some of the diseases for which we may seek approval, in order to receive regulatory approval, we may need to demonstrate through clinical trials that the product candidates we develop to treat these diseases, if any, are not only safe and effective, but safer or more effective than existing products. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been increased public and political pressure on the FDA with respect to the approval process for new drugs, and the FDA’s standards, especially regarding drug safety, appear to have become more stringent. As a result of the foregoing factors, we may never receive regulatory approval to market and commercialize any product candidate.

Preclinical and clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement, and involve uncertain outcomes. Furthermore, results of earlier preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future preclinical studies or clinical trials.

All of our product candidates are still in the preclinical stage, and their risk of failure is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned INDs in the U.S., or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our programs. It is also impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will complete clinical trials evaluating their safety and effectiveness in humans or will receive regulatory approval. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our PATrOL™ platform and product candidates are safe and effective in humans for use in each target indication. To date, we have never advanced a product candidate into a clinical trial. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical or clinical trial process. Our preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, the results of preclinical studies and future clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Similarly, our future clinical trial results may not be successful for these or other reasons.

This product candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in the anticipated clinical trials compared to the completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed from preclinical through early to late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for late stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives.

Any of these changes could make the results of our anticipated clinical trials or other future clinical trials we may initiate less predictable and could cause our product candidates to perform differently, including causing toxicities, which could delay completion of our clinical trials, delay approval of our product candidates, and/or jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

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

We may rely on academic and private non-academic institutions to conduct and sponsor preclinical and clinical trials relating to our product candidates. We will not control the design or conduct of the investigator-sponsored trials, and it is possible that the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities will not view these investigator-sponsored trials as providing adequate support for future preclinical and clinical trials, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any one or more reasons, including elements of the design or execution of the trials or safety concerns or other trial results. For example, we collaborate with, and rely on, academic centers to conduct preclinical and non-investigator-sponsored research and it is possible that the interests of such academic centers may not be aligned with our interests.

Such arrangements will likely provide us certain information rights with respect to the investigator-sponsored trials, including access to and the ability to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory filings, resulting from the investigator-sponsored trials. However, we would not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from investigator-sponsored trials, nor would we own the data from the investigator-sponsored trials. If we are unable to confirm or replicate the results from the investigator-sponsored trials or if negative results are obtained, we would likely be further delayed or prevented from advancing further clinical development of our product candidates. Further, if investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates, or if the data proves to be inadequate compared to the first-hand knowledge we might have gained had the investigator-sponsored trials been sponsored and conducted by us, then our ability to design and conduct any future preclinical or clinical trials ourselves may be adversely affected.

Additionally, the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with the sufficiency of our right of reference to the preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data generated by these investigator-sponsored trials, or our interpretation of preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data from these investigator-sponsored trials. If so, the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional preclinical, manufacturing, or clinical data before we may initiate our anticipated trials and/or may not accept such additional data as adequate to initiate our anticipated trials.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization or have other significant adverse implications on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Undesirable side effects observed in preclinical studies or in clinical trials with our product candidates could interrupt, delay or halt their development and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities for any or all targeted indications or adversely affect the marketability of any product candidates developed using our PATrOL™ platform that receive regulatory approval. In turn, this could eliminate or limit our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product candidates may exhibit adverse effects in preclinical toxicology studies and adverse interactions with other drugs. There are also risks associated with additional requirements the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may impose for marketing approval with regard to a particular disease.

Our product candidates may require a risk management program that could include patient and healthcare provider education, usage guidelines, appropriate promotional activities, a post-marketing observational study and ongoing safety and reporting mechanisms, among other requirements. Prescribing could be limited to physician specialists or physicians trained in the use of the drug, or could be limited to a more restricted patient population. Any risk management program required for approval of our product candidates could potentially have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Undesirable side effects involving our product candidates may have other significant adverse implications on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example:

In addition, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product and could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from the sale of the product.

Delays in the commencement or completion of clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay our ability to establish strategic collaborations.

Delays in the commencement or completion of clinical trials could significantly impact our drug development costs. We do not know whether anticipated clinical trials will begin on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. The commencement of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, delays related to:

In addition, once a clinical trial has begun, it may be suspended or terminated by us, our collaborators, the institutional review boards or data safety monitoring boards charged with overseeing our clinical trials, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities due to a number of factors, including:

If we experience delays in the completion or termination of any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenues from any of our product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs and slow down our product candidate development and approval process. Delays in completing our clinical trials could also allow our competitors to obtain marketing approval before we do or shorten the patent protection period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

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

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may negatively impact our ability to recruit and enroll patients for our clinical trials because they may be reluctant or unable to visit clinical sites, or may delay seeking treatment for chronic conditions.

If we fail to enroll and maintain the number of patients for which the clinical trial was designed, the statistical power of that clinical trial may be reduced, which would make it harder to demonstrate that the product candidate being tested in such clinical trial is safe and effective. Additionally, enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause our value to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

We intend to rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and perform other tasks. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be substantially harmed.

We intend to rely upon third-party CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and anticipated clinical programs. Nevertheless, we maintain responsibility for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies are, and anticipated clinical studies will be, conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve the Company of our regulatory responsibilities. The Company and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with current requirements on cGMP, good clinical practices (“GCP”) and GLP, which are a collection of laws and regulations enforced by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of preclinical study and clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators, preclinical study and clinical trial sites, and other contractors. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fails to comply with applicable regulations, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may require us to perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced consistent with cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require it to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the development and regulatory approval processes.

We may also not be able to enter into arrangements with CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, our CROs will not be our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we will not be able to control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates could be materially and adversely affected, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work replacing a previous CRO. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation under the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities, which can be costly and time consuming, cause unanticipated delays or prevent the receipt of the required approvals to commercialize our product candidates.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, export, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other U.S. regulatory agencies, the EMA or comparable authorities in foreign markets. In the U.S., neither us nor our collaborators are permitted to market our product candidates until we or our collaborators receive approval of an NDA from the FDA or receive similar approvals abroad. The process of obtaining these approvals is expensive, often takes many years, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Approval policies or regulations may change and may be influenced by the results of other similar or competitive products, making it more difficult for us to achieve such approval in a timely manner or at all. Any guidance that may result from recent FDA advisory panel discussions may make it more expensive to develop and commercialize such product candidates. In addition, as a company, we have not previously filed NDAs with the FDA or filed similar applications with other foreign regulatory agencies. This lack of experience may impede our ability to obtain FDA or other foreign regulatory agency approval in a timely manner, if at all, for our product candidates for which development and commercialization is our responsibility.

Despite the time and expense invested, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

Our inability to obtain these approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

The FDA, the NIH and the EMA have demonstrated caution in their regulation of gene therapy treatments, and ethical and legal concerns about gene therapy and genetic testing may result in additional regulations or restrictions on the development and commercialization of our product candidates, which may be difficult to predict.

The FDA, National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and the EMA have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as U.S. congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

Regulatory requirements in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. The FDA established the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise this review. Prior to submitting an IND, our human clinical trials will be subject to review by the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities (“OBA”) Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (the “RAC”). Following an initial review, RAC members make a recommendation as to whether the protocol raises important scientific, safety, medical, ethical or social issues that warrant in-depth discussion at the RAC’s quarterly meetings. Even though the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed under an IND, the RAC’s recommendations are shared with the FDA and the RAC public review process, if undertaken, can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and has not objected to its initiation or has notified the sponsor that the study may begin. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND on a clinical hold even if the RAC has provided a favorable review or has recommended against an in-depth, public review. Moreover, under guidelines published by the NIH, patient enrollment in our future gene silencing clinical trials cannot begin until the investigator for such clinical trial has received a letter from the OBA indicating that the RAC review process has been completed; and Institutional Biosafety Committee (“IBC”) approval as well as all other applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained. In addition to the government regulators, the IBC and IRB of each institution at which we will conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, or a central IRB if appropriate, would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, the EMA governs the development of gene therapies in the European Union and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and committees and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of an increased or lengthier regulatory approval process or further restrictions on the development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our or our collaborators’ ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval in the U.S., it may never receive approval or commercialize our products outside of the U.S.

In order to market any products outside of the U.S., we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process in other countries may include all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA approval in the U.S. as well as other risks. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. Failure to obtain regulatory approval in other countries or any delay seeking or obtaining such approval would impair our ability to develop foreign markets for our product candidates.

Even if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, our product candidates may still face future development and regulatory difficulties.

If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of the product candidates or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and trials. In addition, regulatory agencies subject a product, our manufacturer and the manufacturer’s facilities to continual review and periodic inspections. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, our collaborators or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. Our product candidates will also be subject to ongoing FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities’ requirements for the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information on the drug. If our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

The FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates for our proposed indications, physicians may nevertheless use our products for their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, if the physicians personally believe in their professional medical judgment that our products could be used in such manner. However, if we are found to have promoted our product candidates, if approved, for any off-label uses, the federal government could levy civil, criminal or administrative penalties, and seek fines against us. Such enforcement has become more common in the industry. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities could also request that we enter into a consent decree or a corporate integrity agreement, or seek a permanent injunction against us under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We and our potential contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. The manufacturing facilities on which we will rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements.

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our potential contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our potential contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA or marketing authorization application (“MAA”) on a timely basis and must adhere to GLP and cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities through their facilities inspection program. Some of our potential contract manufacturers may not have produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore may not have obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our potential third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we plan to oversee the contract manufacturers, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the product candidates may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our potential third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly or time consuming for us or a third party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we may contract could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we or any of our potential third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a product candidate, withdrawal of an approval, or suspension of production. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

Additionally, if supply from one manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through an NDA supplement or MAA variation, or equivalent foreign regulatory filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies or trials if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost of commercializing our product candidates and may affect the prices we may obtain if our product candidates are approved for commercialization.

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of adopted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-marketing activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any of our product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval.

In the U.S., the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could limit the coverage and reimbursement rate that we receive for any of our approved product candidates. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively the “ACA”), was enacted. The ACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The ACA increased manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate amount for both branded and generic drugs and revised the definition of “average manufacturer price” (“AMP”), which may also increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates manufacturers are required to pay to states. The legislation also expanded Medicaid drug rebates and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products that is intended to increase the rebates due on those drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, also has proposed to expand Medicaid rebates to the utilization that occurs in the territories of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Further, beginning in 2011, the ACA imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced at both the state and federal level to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products.

There have been recent public announcements by members of the U.S. Congress, President Trump and his administration regarding their plans to repeal and replace the ACA and Medicare. For example, on December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which, among other things, eliminated the individual mandate requiring most Americans (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage, effective January 1, 2019. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing approval testing and other requirements.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the U.S. of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Further, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint,” or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. While some proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs.

In June 2016, the United Kingdom (“UK”) held a referendum pursuant to which voters elected to leave the European Union (“EU”), commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and began a transition period that is scheduled to end on December 31, 2020. During the transition period, the UK remains subject to EU law while they negotiate their future relationship with the EU, but is no longer part of the EU’s political institutions and agencies. Although the long-term effects of Brexit will depend on any agreements the UK makes to retain access to the EU markets, Brexit has created additional uncertainties that may ultimately result in new regulatory costs and challenges for biotechnology companies. We cannot predict what consequences the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, if it occurs, might have on the regulatory frameworks of the United Kingdom or the European Union, or on our future operations, if any, in these jurisdictions.

Changes in government funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, properly administer drug innovation, or prevent our product candidates from being developed or commercialized, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. This new legislation is designed to advance medical innovation and empower the FDA with the authority to directly hire positions related to drug and device development and review. However, government proposals to reduce or eliminate budgetary deficits may include reduced allocations to the FDA and other related government agencies. These budgetary pressures may result in a reduced ability by the FDA to perform their respective roles; including the related impact to academic institutions and research laboratories whose funding is fully or partially dependent on both the level and timing of funding from government sources.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for our product candidates to be reviewed or approved by necessary government agencies, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to “fraud and abuse” and similar laws and regulations, and a failure to comply with such regulations or prevail in any litigation related to noncompliance could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the U.S., we are subject to various federal and state healthcare “fraud and abuse” laws, including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws and other laws intended, among other things, to reduce fraud and abuse in federal and state healthcare programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer, or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug, or other good or service for which payment in whole or in part may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Although we seek to structure our business arrangements in compliance with all applicable requirements, these laws are broadly written, and it is often difficult to determine precisely how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that our practices may be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing to be presented for payment to the government, including the federal healthcare programs, claims for reimbursed drugs or services that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services that were not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we are prohibited from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services to obtain money or property of any healthcare benefit program. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payors. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement, we could be subject to penalties.

Neither the government nor the courts have provided definitive guidance on the application of fraud and abuse laws to our business. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing these laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If we are found in violation of one of these laws, we could be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from governmental funded federal or state healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If this occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

If we face allegations of noncompliance with the law and encounter sanctions, our reputation, revenues and liquidity may suffer, and any of our product candidates that are ultimately approved for commercialization could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market.

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues from any of our product candidates that are ultimately approved for commercialization. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to generate revenues from product sales, our potential for achieving profitability will be diminished and our need to raise capital to fund our operations will increase.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock is expected to be volatile

The trading price of our stock is likely to be volatile. Our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:

In addition, the stock market, and equity values of small pharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. Further, a decline in the financial markets and related factors beyond our control may cause our stock price to decline rapidly and unexpectedly.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against those companies. Such litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention and resources, which could significantly harm our profitability and reputation.

As previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 (the “2019 Form 10-K”), in connection with the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, but prior to the issuance of such financial statements, the Company determined the accounting treatment and valuations pertaining to the PATrOL™ technology license acquired during the first quarter of fiscal 2019 should be modified. The 2019 Form 10-K disclosed that the change in accounting treatment and valuations resulted in an increase in total operating expenses of approximately $0.9 million on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 and a decrease in intangible assets of approximately $1.5 million on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, as well as a decrease in total operating expenses of approximately $0.3 million on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations in connection with the adjustment of the valuation of certain share-based awards for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.

In addition, the Company identified an error in one of the Black-Scholes option pricing model assumptions, utilized in calculating the fair value of a stock option award granted during the year ended September 30, 2019, which resulted in an overstatement of share-based compensation expense. The Company concluded that the error was not material to any prior annual or interim period. Nevertheless, the Company has revised its historical financial statements to properly reflect the fair value of options granted in the prior period.

If we are required to restate any of our financial statements in the future due to our inability to adequately remedy the issues that gave rise to these modifications or for any other reason, we may be subject to regulatory penalties and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause our share price to decline.

Our management owns a significant percentage of our stock and is able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

Dr. Stephan, our President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of us, holds a significant number of shares of our outstanding common stock and an option to purchase additional shares of common stock. Accordingly, Dr. Stephan has the ability to influence us through his ownership position.

This significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price for our common stock because investors often perceive disadvantages in owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders. As a result, Dr. Stephan could significantly influence all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combination transactions. Dr. Stephan may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. The interests of these stockholders may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders. This may also prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interests as one of our stockholders, and he may act in a manner that advances his best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for his common stock, and might affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which has been remediated. If we identify additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect our business and stock price.

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting that was unremediated as of September 30, 2019. Although this material weakness was remediated as of September 30, 2020 as discussed in Item 9A of Part II of this Form 10-K, we cannot assure you that we will not identify another material weakness in the future. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected in a timely basis.

As previously disclosed in our 2019 Form 10-K, in connection with the preparation of our financial statements for such fiscal year, our management and the Audit Committee of our board of directors determined that our accounting treatment and valuations pertaining to the PATrOL™ technology license should be modified. In connection with such revisions, our management identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting due to a lack of expertise in complex accounting transactions, which were not operating effectively to provide reasonable assurance that complex transactions were accounted for correctly. We subsequently restated our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations and our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of and for the three months ended December 31, 2018 and as of and for the three and six months ended March 31, 2019 upon the filing of our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for such periods. As discussed in Item 9A of Part II of this Form 10-K, we took remedial measures during fiscal 2019 and throughout fiscal 2020 to remediate this material weakness.

We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we may take in the future, will be sufficient to prevent or avoid potential future material weaknesses. In connection with the implementation of the necessary procedures and practices related to internal control over financial reporting, we may identify material weaknesses that we may not be able to remediate in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for compliance with the requirements of Section 404. In addition, we may encounter problems or delays in completing the implementation of any improvements and receiving a favorable attestation by our independent registered public accounting firm, if and when required.

If we are unable to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment in our disclosure controls or internal control over financial reporting, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected; our liquidity, our access to capital markets and our ability to complete acquisitions may be adversely affected; we may be unable to maintain or regain compliance with applicable securities laws, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) listing requirements, and the covenants under certain agreements regarding the timely filing of periodic reports; we may be subject to regulatory investigations and penalties; investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting; and our stock price may decline.

We restated our previously issued unaudited financial statements for the three months ended December 31, 2019 and the three and six months ended March 31, 2019. As a result, and if we identify errors in our financial reporting in the future that require us to restate other previously issued financial statements, such restatements may subject us to unanticipated costs or regulatory penalties and could cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

As discussed further in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020, we restated our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and related disclosures for the three months ended December 31, 2018 and the three and six months ended March 31, 2019, following the identification of misstatements therein in connection with the preparation of our financial statements for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019. The misstatements were quantitatively material to the period presented in such prior financial statements, and we determined that it would be appropriate to correct the misstatements in such previously issued interim financial statements by restating such financial statements. We may be subject to unanticipated costs and regulatory penalties and investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause our share price to decline, due to such restatement and if we are required to restate any of our other financial statements in the future.

As a result of our failure to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2019, we are currently ineligible to file new short form registration statements on Form S-3, which may impair our ability to raise capital on terms favorable to us, in a timely manner or at all.

Form S-3 permits eligible issuers to conduct registered offerings using a short form registration statement that allows the issuer to incorporate by reference its past and future filings and reports made under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). In addition, Form S-3 enables eligible issuers to conduct primary offerings “off the shelf” under Rule 415 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The shelf registration process, combined with the ability to forward incorporate information, allows issuers to avoid delays and interruptions in the offering process and to access the capital markets in a more expeditions and efficient manner than raising capital in a standard registered offering pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1. The ability to newly register securities for resale may also be limited as a result of the loss of Form S-3 eligibility with respect to such registrations.

As previously disclosed in our 2019 Form 10-K, in connection with the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, but prior to the issuance of such financial statements, the Company determined the accounting treatment and valuations pertaining to the PATrOL™ technology license acquired during the first quarter of fiscal 2019 should be modified. The 2019 Form 10-K disclosed that the change in accounting treatment and valuations resulted in an increase in total operating expenses of approximately $0.9 million on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 and a decrease in intangible assets of approximately $1.5 million on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, as well as a decrease in total operating expenses of approximately $0.3 million on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations in connection with the adjustment of the valuation of certain share-based awards for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. In addition, on February 12, 2020, we dismissed our former independent registered public accounting firm. Accordingly, we were unable to complete the compilation, analysis and review of information required to be included in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2019 until after the deadline for such filing.

As a result of our failure to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2019, we are currently ineligible to file new short form registration statements on Form S-3, and, absent a waiver of the Form S-3 eligibility requirements, we will no longer be permitted to use our existing registration statements on Form S-3 upon the earlier to occur of the expiration of such registration statements on Form S-3, the filing of this Form 10-K or the occurrence of a fundamental change which would require a post-effective amendment to any such registration statements pursuant to Item 512 of Regulation S-K and Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act. As a consequence, we might not be permitted to sell all of the amount of common stock we could otherwise sell prior to such time, which could adversely affect our ability to run our operations and progress our clinical and product development programs. We will not be permitted to conduct an “at the market offering” absent an effective primary registration statement on Form S-3.

Our inability to file new registration statements on Form S-3 may significantly impair our ability to raise necessary capital to run our operations and progress our clinical and product development programs. If we seek to access the capital markets through a registered offering during the period of time that we are unable to file a new registration statement on Form S-3, we may be required to publicly disclose the proposed offering and the material terms thereof before the offering commences, we may experience delays in the offering process due to SEC review of a Form S-1 registration statement and we may incur increased offering and transaction costs and other considerations. Disclosing a public offering prior to the formal commencement of an offering may result in downward pressure on our stock price. If we are unable to raise capital through a registered offering, we would be required to conduct our equity financing transactions on a private placement basis, which may be subject to pricing, size and other limitations imposed under Nasdaq rules, or seek other sources of capital.

Absent a waiver of the Form S-3 eligibility requirements and assuming we continue to timely file our required Exchange Act reports, the earliest we would regain the ability to file a new registration statement on Form S-3 is April 1, 2021.

We may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure requirements applicable to a “smaller reporting company” under Regulation S-K, and the information that we provide to stockholders may be different than they might receive from other public companies.

We are a “smaller reporting company,” as defined under Regulation S-K. As a smaller reporting company, we may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include, among other things, scaled disclosure requirements, including about our executive compensation arrangements.

We intend to continue to take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosure requirements of smaller reporting companies. We may continue to take advantage of these allowances until we are no longer a smaller reporting company. We will cease to be a smaller reporting company if we have (i) more than $250 million in market value of our shares held by non-affiliates as of the last business day of our second fiscal quarter or (ii) more than $100 million of annual revenues in our most recent fiscal year completed before the last business day of our second fiscal quarter and a market value of our shares held by non-affiliates more than $700 million as of the last business day of our second fiscal quarter. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these scaled disclosure requirements. Therefore, the information that we provide stockholders may be different than one might get from other public companies. Further, if some investors find our shares of common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our shares of common stock and the market price of such shares of common stock may be more volatile.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research, or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research, about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. In addition, if our operating results fail to meet the forecast of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market by our stockholders, future issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase our common stock, could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders other than actions arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for:

These exclusive-forum provisions do not apply to claims under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or any other claims for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

These exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and other employees. If a court were to find either exclusive forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, it may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business.

We are subject to securities class action litigation and derivative shareholder litigation. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on us.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr and several current and former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the district court. After full briefing and oral argument, on October 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and remanding the action to the district court to make a determination on the record related to plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an amended complaint. On October 16, 2020, the district court requested the parties’ positions as to how they proposed to proceed in light of the Second Circuit’s decision. After letter briefing on this issue and plaintiffs’ alternative request for leave to file a second amended complaint, on November 16, 2020, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request to amend and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims. On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order denying plaintiffs leave to amend. The Company cannot predict at this time whether plaintiffs will choose to pursue any appeal or modification of the dismissal order within the applicable time period. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of the Company’s common stock.

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff Adele J. Barke, derivatively on behalf of Ohr, commenced an action against certain former directors of Ohr, including Michael Ferguson, Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, June Almenoff and Jason S. Slakter in the Supreme Court, State of New York, alleging that the action was brought in the right and for the benefit of Ohr seeking to remedy their “breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment that occurred between June 24, 2014 and the present.” It does not quantify any alleged damages. We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Such litigation has been stayed pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, which has been so ordered by the court, pending a decision in the Southern District case on the motion to dismiss, but that status could change. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase and Ohr Acquisition Corp., captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the “Wheby Action”). The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the SEC on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses. The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action. Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of the Company more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may significantly reduce the value of shares of our common stock to a potential acquirer or delay or prevent an acquisition or a change in management without the consent of our board of directors. The provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws include the following:

Although we believe these provisions collectively will provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove then current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of the board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of management.

Certain provisions of the DGCL deter hostile takeovers. Specifically, Section 203 of the DGCL prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an “interested stockholder” for a period of three years following the date the person first became an interested stockholder, unless (with certain exceptions) the business combination or the transaction by which the person became an interested stockholder is approved in a prescribed manner. Generally, a “business combination” includes a merger, asset or stock sale, or certain other transactions resulting in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder. Generally, an “interested stockholder” is a person who, together with affiliates and associates, beneficially owns or within three years prior to becoming an “interested stockholder” did own, 15% or more of a corporation’s outstanding voting stock. While this statute permits a corporation to opt out of these protective provisions in its certificate of incorporation, our certificate of incorporation does not include any such opt-out provision.

Claims for indemnification by our directors and officers may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us and may reduce the amount of money available to us.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that we will indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law.

In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:

Our indemnification obligations could result in substantial expenditures by us, which we will be unable to recover.

Our pre-Merger net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes will likely be subject to limitations. The pre-Merger net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes of us may also be subject to limitations as a result of ownership changes resulting from the Merger.

In general, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” as defined in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses (“NOLs”) to offset future taxable income (the “Section 382 Limitation”). Such an ownership change occurs if the aggregate stock ownership of certain stockholders, generally stockholders beneficially owning five percent or more of a corporation’s common stock, applying certain look-through and aggregation rules, increases by more than 50 percentage points over such stockholders’ lowest percentage ownership during the testing period, generally three years. Due to the ownership change of the Company upon completion of the Merger, our NOLs and certain other tax attributes will be subject to the Section 382 Limitation. Consequently, even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs and certain other tax attributes because of the Section 382 Limitation, which could have a material adverse effect on cash flow and results of operations. As of September 30, 2020, we estimated that we had approximately $20.0 million in NOL carryforwards. We have not completed an analysis regarding the limitation of net operating loss carryforwards, however, it is likely that the Section 382 Limitation will cause a significant portion of our NOL carryforwards to never be utilized. In addition, if we are determined to have discontinued our historic business following the completion of the Merger, subject to certain exceptions, the Section 382 Limitation could eliminate all possibility of utilizing our NOL carryforwards.

We may never pay dividends on our common stock so any returns would be limited to the appreciation of our stock.

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate we will declare or pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

We currently lease approximately 2,350 square feet of office and laboratory space at our headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Our laboratory space is used in our research and development program activities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and accommodates our anticipated workforce and near-term growth needs. The lease terms are at the current prevailing market rates per square foot and expire at the end of calendar 2020. We believe that our leased facilities are generally well maintained and in good operating condition and that the space is suitable and sufficient for our current operational needs.

In October 2020, we entered into a lease for approximately 14,189 square feet of office and laboratory space in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which will become our new headquarters. This laboratory space will be used in our research and development program activities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and will accommodate our anticipated workforce and near-term growth needs. The lease terms are at the current prevailing market rates per square foot and for a term of ten years, with an opportunity for us to extend the lease by additional five-year terms. We believe that our leased facilities are generally well maintained and in good operating condition and that the space is suitable and sufficient for our operational needs. The Company expects to move into the new headquarters at the end of the first calendar quarter of 2021.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We have become involved in certain legal proceedings and claims which arise in the normal course of business. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr and several current and former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the district court. After full briefing and oral argument, on October 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and remanding the action to the district court to make a determination on the record related to plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an amended complaint. On October 16, 2020, the district court requested the parties’ positions as to how they proposed to proceed in light of the Second Circuit’s decision. After letter briefing on this issue and plaintiffs’ alternative request for leave to file a second amended complaint, on November 16, 2020, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request to amend and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims. On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order denying plaintiffs leave to amend. The Company cannot predict at this time whether plaintiffs will choose to pursue any appeal or modification of the dismissal order within the applicable time period. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of the Company’s common stock.

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff Adele J. Barke, derivatively on behalf of Ohr, commenced an action against certain former directors of Ohr, including Michael Ferguson, Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, June Almenoff and Jason S. Slakter in the Supreme Court, State of New York, alleging that the action was brought in the right and for the benefit of Ohr seeking to remedy their “breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment that occurred between June 24, 2014 and the present.” It does not quantify any alleged damages. We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Such litigation has been stayed pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, which has been so ordered by the court, pending a decision in the Southern District case on the motion to dismiss, but that status could change. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase, and Ohr Acquisition Corp., captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the “Wheby Action”). The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the SEC on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses. The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action. Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock.

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 traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “NBSE.” Before July 15, 2019, our common stock traded under the ticker symbol “OHRP”. The daily market activity and closing prices of our common stock can be found at www.nasdaq.com.

On November 30, 2020, the last reported sales price for our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market was $7.67 per share, and we had 183 holders of record of our common stock. One of our shareholders is Cede & Co., a nominee for Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). Shares of common stock that are held by financial institutions as nominees for beneficial owners are deposited into participant accounts at DTC and are considered to be held of record by Cede & Co. as one stockholder.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

See Item 12 of Part III of this Form 10-K regarding information about securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

There were no unregistered sales of common stock or other equity securities during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Not applicable.

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Disclosures Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This report includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of the Company and its subsidiaries and our management team. Any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to those risks and uncertainties set forth in Item 1A of this Form 10-K. In light of the significant risks and uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking statements included in this Form 10-K, the inclusion of such statements should not be regarded as a representation by us or any other person that our objectives and plans will be achieved. Further, these forward-looking statements reflect our view only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligations to update any forward-looking statements and we disclaim any intent to update forward-looking statements after the date of this report to reflect subsequent developments. Accordingly, you should also carefully consider the factors set forth in other reports or documents that we file from time to time with the SEC.

Presentation

On July 12, 2019, Ohr completed the Merger. At the closing of the Merger, each outstanding share of Legacy NeuBase’s capital stock was converted into the right to receive 1.019055643 shares of our common stock. Shares of our common stock commenced trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “NBSE” as of market open on July 15, 2019. Our previous ticker symbol was “OHRP”. As a result of the Merger, our going-forward operations will be primarily those of Legacy NeuBase. Accordingly, the results of operations reported for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations are not indicative of the results of operations expected for future years due to the transition of our historic business operations to primarily those of Legacy NeuBase.

Overview

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”, “we”, “us” and “our”) is a biotechnology company accelerating the genetic revolution using a new class of synthetic medicines. Our modular peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligo (“PATrOL™”) platform which outputs “anti-gene” candidate therapies is designed to combine the specificity of genetic sequence-based target recognition with a modularity that enables use of various in vivo delivery technologies to enable broad and also selective tissue distribution capabilities. Given that every human disease may have a genetic component, we believe that our differentiated platform technology has the potential for broad impact by increasing, decreasing or changing gene function at either the DNA or RNA levels to resolve the progression to disease, as appropriate in a particular indication. We plan to use our platform to address diseases driven by a genetic abnormality and we are initially focused on Huntington’s disease (“HD”) and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (“DM1”).

Mutated proteins resulting from errors in deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) sequences cause rare genetic diseases and cancer. DNA in each cell of the body is transcribed into pre-messenger ribonucleic acid (“pre-mRNA”), which is then processed (spliced) into mRNA, which is exported into the cytoplasm of the cell and translated into a protein. This is termed the “central dogma” of biology. Therefore, when errors in a DNA sequence occur, they are often propagated into RNAs and can produce a damaging protein.

We are developing “anti-gene” therapies. Anti-genes are similar, but distinct, from antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs). ASOs are short single strands of nucleic acids (traditionally thought of as single-stranded RNA molecules) which bind to defective RNA targets in cells and inhibit their ability to form defective proteins. We believe we are a leader in the discovery and development of this new class of anti-gene drugs derived from peptide-nucleic acids (“PNAs”). The key differentiator between ASOs and anti-genes is that the scaffold is not derived from a natural sugar-phosphate nucleic acid backbone, rather is a synthetic polyamide which is charge-neutral (and thus high affinity to allow invasion of double-stranded targets), semi-rigid, and apparently non-biodegradable and immunologically inert. These features provide potential advantages over ASOs and other genetic therapies for modulating disease-causing genes including increased unique target opportunities, improved target specificity and a reduction in both sequence-dependent and independent toxicities. In addition, as these anti-genes are manufactured via standard peptide synthesis methods, they efficiently leverage the advancements in the synthetic peptide industry to enable modulating pharmacophore delivery, pharmacokinetics, sub-cellular placement and endosomal escape.

In addition to the scaffold, we also have a kit of natural nucleobases, chemically modified nucleobases which add further precision to a nucleic acid target of interest, and proprietary bi-specific nucleobases which can be added to the scaffold to allow precise target engagement. These bi-specific nucleobases, in particular, can be used in any combination to more specifically access double stranded DNA targets and RNA targets comprised of secondary structures such as hairpins (double stranded RNA targets which are folded upon themselves). This allows us to potentially access regions of the target transcript which may be unique in secondary structure to allow enhanced selectivity for the target (mutant) RNA as compared to the normal RNA. Enhanced selectivity for mutant RNAs as compared to normal RNAs is critical as normal RNAs are likely required for effective functioning of the cell. These bi-specific nucleotides can also target genomic loci and microRNAs in their double-stranded form.

A component of the modular platform is the ability to add delivery technology to the pharmacophores so as to reach a desired cell or tissue upon in vivo administration. There is flexibility to append various delivery technologies to the pharmacophore to allow either broad tissue distribution or narrow cell and/or tissue targeting if so desired based on targets. One such technology is a chemical moiety can be used to decorate the scaffold directly and allows the anti-genes to penetrate cell membranes and into subcellular compartments where they act as well as to distribute throughout the body when administered systemically.

In addition to the scaffold and modified nucleobases, the platform toolkit also includes linker technology which, when added to both ends of the PNAs, allow cooperative binding between individual drug molecules once they are engaged with the target RNA to form longer and more tightly bound drugs.

This toolkit of components forms the PATrOL™ platform and allows us to manufacture gene and transcript-specific anti-genes.

We are currently focused on therapeutic areas in which we believe our drugs will provide the greatest benefit with a significant market opportunity. We intend to utilize our technology to build out a pipeline of custom designed therapeutics for additional high-value disease targets. We are developing several preclinical programs using our PATrOL™ platform, including the NT0100 program, targeted at Huntington’s disease (“HD”), a repeat expansion disorder, and the NT0200 program, targeted at myotonic dystrophy, type 1 (“DM1”). Preclinical studies are being conducted to evaluate the PATrOL™ platform technology and program candidates in the areas of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tolerability, and we reported results from certain of those studies in the first calendar quarter of 2020 and have extended upon certain of those studies in the fourth calendar quarter of 2020 which illustrated that our anti-gene technology can be administered to human patient-derived cell lines and systemically (via intravenous (IV) administration) into animals with DM1 (a genetically modified model accepted as the most representative of the human disease) and can resolve the causal genetic defect. We expect to present additional results from ongoing preclinical studies evaluating the PATrOL^TM platform and pipeline indications in the first half of calendar 2021, begin IND enabling studies in one or more of our programs in calendar year 2021 and begin a clinical trial in one or more of our programs in calendar 2022. See below for additional detailed results from certain of our preclinical studies. In addition, the emerging pipeline of other assets that target primary and secondary RNA structure and genomic DNA allows a unique market advantage across a variety of rare diseases and oncology targets.

Overall, using our PATrOL™ platform, we believe we can create anti-gene therapies that have distinct advantages over other chemical entities currently in the market or in development for genetic medicine applications to modulate mutant genes and resolve a clinical trait or disorder. These advantages may differ by indication and can include, among others:

With these unique component parts and their advantages, our PATrOL™ platform-enabled anti-gene therapies can potentially address a multitude of rare genetic diseases and cancer, among other indications.

We employ a rational approach to selecting disease targets, considering many scientific, technical, business and indication-specific factors before choosing each indication. We intend to build a diverse portfolio of therapies custom-designed to treat a variety of health conditions, with an initial emphasis on rare genetic diseases and cancers. A key component of this strategy is continuing to improve the scientific understanding and optimization of our platform technology and programs, including how various components of our platform technology perform, and our drug candidates impact the biological processes of the target diseases, so that we can utilize this information to reduce risk in our future programs and indications. In addition, with our expertise in discovering and characterizing novel anti-gene drugs, we believe that our scientists can optimize the properties of our PATrOL™-enabled drug candidates for use with particular targets that we determine to be of high value.

The depth of our knowledge and expertise with PNAs, bifacial and engineered nucleotides, genetics and genomics and therapeutic development of first-in-class modalities provides potential flexibility to determine the optimal development and commercialization strategy to maximize the near and longer-term value of our drug candidates.

We have distinct partnering strategies that we plan to employ based on the specific drug candidate, therapeutic area expertise and resources potential partners may bring to a collaboration. For some drug candidates, we may choose to develop and, if approved, commercialize them ourselves or through our affiliates. For other drug candidates, we may form single or multi asset partnerships leveraging our partners’ global expertise and resources needed to support large commercial opportunities.

Globally, there are thousands of genetic diseases, most of which lack any therapeutic options. In addition, rare genetic diseases are often particularly severe, debilitating or fatal. Traditionally, therapeutic development for each rare genetic disorder has been approached with a unique strategy, which is inefficient, as there are thousands of diseases that need treatment solutions. The collective population of people with rare diseases stands to benefit profoundly from the emergence of a scalable and modular treatment development platform that allows for a more efficient discovery of drug product candidates to address these conditions cohesively.

Mutated proteins resulting from errors in deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) sequences cause many rare genetic diseases and cancer. DNA in each cell of the body is transcribed into pre-RNA, which is then processed (spliced) into mRNA which is exported into the cytoplasm of the cell and translated into protein. This is termed the “central dogma” of biology. Therefore, when errors in a DNA sequence occur, they are propagated to RNAs and can become a damaging protein.

Conceptually, we have learned that ASOs can inactivate target RNAs before they can produce harmful proteins by binding them in a sequence-specific manner, which can delay disease progression or even eliminate genetic disease symptoms. ASOs designed by others to target known disease-related mutant RNA sequences have been shown to be able to degrade these transcripts and have a positive clinical impact. Similarly, applications in modifying splicing of pre-RNA in the nucleus of the cell have been developed by others to exclude damaging exons from the final mRNA product and have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). We plan to extend upon these conceptual breakthroughs by utilizing our first-in-class technology which we believe has significant benefits in certain application areas to better resolve a clinical disorder with well tolerated anti-gene therapies.

We believe the breadth of the PATrOL™ platform gives us the ability to potentially address a multitude of inherited genetic diseases. The technology may also allow us to target and inactivate gain-of-function and change-of-function mutations, and address targets in recessive disease and haploinsufficiencies by altering splicing to remove damaging exons/mutations or increasing expression of wild-type alleles by various means.

Gamma-modified scaffolds, an optimized version of which we utilize, have demonstrated preclinical in vivo efficacy in several applications which we believe can be translated across many targets and into humans. For example, in oncology such scaffolds have reduced expression of an activated oncogene (the epidermal growth factor receptor of the EGFR gene) and have modified gene regulation by targeting microRNAs to slow tumor growth. Such scaffolds have also demonstrated in vivo engagement with the double-stranded genome in studies done by others to perform in vivo single-base genome editing.

Announcement of Positive Preclinical Data

On March 31, 2020, we announced positive preclinical data from our pharmacokinetics studies in non-human primates (“NHPs”) and in vitro pharmacodynamics data in patient-derived cell lines. Our pharmacokinetics studies in NHPs demonstrated, among other things:

Our pharmacodynamics studies in patient-derived cell lines demonstrated, among other things:

In addition, PATrOL™ enabled compounds were generally well-tolerated in vivo after systemic administration, both after single-dose administration in NHPs and multi-dose administration in mice for over a month.

Product Pipeline

NT0100 Program - PATrOL™ Enabled Anti-Gene for Huntington’s Disease

HD is a devastating rare neurodegenerative disorder. After onset, symptoms such as uncontrolled movements, cognitive impairments and emotional disturbances worsen over time. HD is caused by toxic aggregation of mutant huntingtin protein, leading to progressive neuron loss in the striatum and cortex of the brain. The wild-type huntingtin gene (HTT) has a region in which a three-base DNA sequence, CAG, is repeated many times. When the DNA sequence CAG is repeated 26 or fewer times in this region, the resulting protein behaves normally. While the wild-type function of HTT protein is largely uncharacterized, it is known to be essential for normal brain development. When the DNA sequence CAG is repeated 40 times or more in this region, the resulting protein becomes toxic and causes HD. Every person has two copies, or alleles, of the HTT gene. Only one of the alleles (the “mutant” allele) needs to bear at least 40 CAG repeats for HD to occur. HD is one of many known repeat expansion disorders, which are a set of genetic disorders caused by a mutation that leads to a repeat of nucleotides exceeding the normal threshold. Current therapies for patients with HD can only manage individual symptoms.

There is no approved therapy that has been shown to delay or halt disease progression. There are approximately 30,000 symptomatic patients in the U.S. and more than 200,000 at-risk of inheriting the disease globally.

One especially important advantage of the PATrOL™ platform that makes it promising for the treatment of repeat expansion disorders like HD is the ability of our small anti-genes to potentially target the RNA hairpin. As the number of repeats increases, the PATrOL™ anti-genes bind more tightly to each other and the mutant RNA. This allows our therapies to potentially inactivate mutant HTT mRNA before it can be translated into harmful protein via selective binding to the expanded CAG repeats while leaving the normal HTT mRNA largely unbound to drug and producing functional protein. Achieving mutant allele selectivity would be a key advantage for any RNA-based approach aiming to treat HD. In March of 2020 we illustrated the ability of our anti-gene technology to enrich for translational inhibition and resultant mutant protein in human patient-derived cell lines versus wild-type HTT alleles. We illustrated that our anti-genes can inhibit ribosomal elongation via high-affinity binding. The PATrOL™-enabled NT0100 program is currently in preclinical development for the treatment of HD.

NT0200 Program- PATrOL™ Enabled Anti-Gene for Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1

Our pipeline also contains a second potentially transformative medicine, which we believe has significant potential for DM1, a severe and rare trinucleotide repeat disease. DM1 is a multisystem disorder that primarily affects skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle, as well as the brain. DM1 is caused by expansion of a CUG trinucleotide repeat in the 3’ untranslated region (UTR), a noncoding region of the myotonic dystrophy protein kinase gene (DMPK) transcript, which captures and sequesters protein that have critical functions in the nucleus related to appropriate splicing of hundreds of transcripts. These sequestered proteins cannot then fulfill their normal functions. In addition, it has been documented that sequestration of the mutant transcripts in the nucleus results in their inability to be translated and results in haploinsufficiency, a situation where 50% of the protein in not enough to maintain normal function. Mice with both copies of their DMPK gene knocked out manifest a cardiac conduction defect (Berul CI, Maguire CT, Aronovitz MJ, Greenwood J, Miller C, Gehrmann J, Housman D, Mendelsohn ME, Reddy S. DMPK dosage alterations result in atrioventricular conduction abnormalities in a mouse myotonic dystrophy model. J Clin Invest. 1999 Feb;103(4):R1-7. doi: 10.1172/JCI5346. PMID: 10021468; PMCID: PMC408103.) and a CNS phenotype characterized by abnormal long-term potentiation (Schulz PE, McIntosh AD, Kasten MR, Wieringa B, Epstein HF. A role for myotonic dystrophy protein kinase in synaptic plasticity. J Neurophysiol. 2003 Mar;89(3):1177-86. doi: 10.1152/jn.00504.2002. Epub 2002 Nov 13. PMID: 12612014.) hypothesized to be due to inappropriate cytoskeletal remodeling. We propose that our mechanism of action is via direct engagement of our anti-gene with the expanded CUG repeat hairpin structure in the 3’ UTR of mutant transcript, invasion and opening of the hairpin structure, and release of the sequestered CUG-repeat binding proteins. This release of sequestered proteins which are normally involved in developmentally appropriate pre-mRNA splicing in the nucleus resolves the generalized splice defect and thus the major causal event. Our DM1 anti-gene is designed to not specifically degrade the mutant transcript, rather to release the RNA-protein aggregates through steric displacement, and as a result may improve endophenotypes of the clinical condition, such as in the heart and brain (contingent on delivering effective concentrations of anti-gene to these tissues).

DM1 is characterized clinically by myotonia (inability to relax a muscle after contraction), muscle weakness, muscle wasting and a CNS endophenotype that is characterized by and is confirmed by molecular genetic testing of DMPK trinucleotiode repeat expansion. CTG repeat length (in the genome) exceeding 34 repeats is abnormal and often patients have hundreds or thousands of repeat units. Molecular genetic testing detects pathogenic variants in nearly 100% of affected individuals. It is estimated that the global prevalence of DM1 is 1 in 20,000 individuals. The clinical candidates in development target the DM1 expanded allele with PATrOL™-enabled drug candidates to disrupt and/or open the mutant hairpin and allow release of sequestered splice proteins, and resolution of the possible contributory haploinsufficiency by allowing the mutant transcript to translocate to the cytoplasm and be expressed together with the wild-type transcript to form a complete complement of DMPK protein in critical tissues. Our recent data illustrates that we are able to systemically deliver our anti-genes intravenously in DM1 genetic mouse models, engage the target in the skeletal muscles of the animals, and rescue the causal splice defect.

Additional Indications

In addition, we are in the process of building an early stage pipeline of other therapies that focus on the unique advantages of our technology across a variety of diseases with an underlying genetic driver.

We believe that the preclinical data we have generated on our PATrOL^TM platform and pipeline programs support the advancement of the Company’s programs through additional preclinical activities and subsequent IND-enabling studies.

Recent Developments

On December 16, 2020, we announced additional positive preclinical data on our platform and DM1 program. In vitro data highlights in DM1 patient-derived fibroblasts include activity of an anti-gene (Compound A) that targets the CUG repeat in DM1:

In vivo data highlights in the HSA^LR transgenic mouse model of DM1 that expresses high levels of mutant CUG-repeat-containing mRNA (HSA) in skeletal muscle:

We believe the intersection of the NHP pharmacokinetic data and the in vitro and in vivo pharmacodynamic data provides a roadmap to create a pipeline of therapeutic candidates which can reach target tissues of interest after systemic administration and achieve the desired activity at that dose. We believe that the data from these studies provides a roadmap for the future expansion of the Company’s therapeutic pipeline into other indications.

Results of Operations

Results of operations for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 reflect the following changes from the year ended September 30, 2019.

Until we are able to generate revenues, our management expects to continue to incur net losses.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expense consists primarily of legal and professional fees, wages and stock-based compensation. General and administrative expenses increased by $1.0 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, primarily due to an increase in employee head count and additional legal and professional services.

Research and Development Expense

Research and development expense consist primarily of professional fees, manufacturing expenses, wages and stock-based compensation. Research and development expenses increased by $3.5 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, primarily due to an increase in employee headcount and the ramp up of research and development activities.

Research and Development Expense- Licenses Acquired

Research and development expense- licenses acquired consists of licenses acquired from CMU and in the Merger with Ohr. Research and development expense- licenses acquired decreased by $13.0 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, primarily due to our acquisition of license rights in 2019.

Interest Expense

Interest expense consists primarily of interest on convertible notes and notes payable. Interest expense decreased by $0.1 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, primarily due to the decrease in convertible notes. No convertible notes were outstanding during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020.

Change in Fair Value of Warrant Liabilities

Change in fair value of warrant liabilities reflects the changes in warrant liabilities primarily due to changes in our stock price. Change in fair value of warrant liabilities decreased by $0.04 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, primarily due to changes in our stock price which is reflected in the warrant valuation.

Equity in losses on equity method investment

The Company accounts for its investment in DepYmed common shares using the equity method of accounting and records its proportionate share of DepYmed’s net income and losses. Equity in losses for the years ended September 30, 2020 and 2019 was approximately $0.3 million and $0, respectively.

Other income

Other income reflects the Company’s license, and completed transfer, of certain clinical trial data during the year ended September 30, 2020. No such license and data transfer occurred during the comparative prior year period.

Liquidity, Capital Resources and Financial Condition

We have no revenues from product sales and have incurred operating losses since inception. The Company has historically funded its operations through the sale of common stock and the issuance of convertible notes and warrants. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable. As a result, we will likely need to raise additional capital through one or more of the following: the issuance of additional debt or equity or the completion of a licensing transaction for one or more of the Company’s pipeline assets. Management believes that it has sufficient working capital on hand to fund operations through at least the next twelve months from the date these consolidated financial statements were issued.

Net working capital increased from the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 to the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 by $21.1 million (to $29.7 million from $8.5 million) primarily due to our April 2020 underwritten public offering of 6,037,500 shares of common stock, at a price to the public of $6.00 per share, offset, in part, by costs for the development of our PATrOL™ platform technology and lead programs. We received net proceeds from the offering of approximately $33.3 million, after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and other estimated offering expenses payable by the Company. Our quarterly cash burn has increased significantly compared to prior periods due to increased research and development activities. We anticipate that our cash needs will likely continue to increase relative to prior periods as we increase our research and development activities, and believe that our current cash balance will provide sufficient capital to continue operations into the first calendar quarter of 2022.

At present, we have no bank line of credit or other fixed source of capital reserves. Should we need additional capital in the future, we will be primarily reliant upon a private or public placement of our equity or debt securities, or a strategic transaction, for which there can be no warranty or assurance that we may be successful in such efforts. If we are unable to maintain sufficient financial resources, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected. This could affect future development and business activities and potential future clinical studies and/or other future ventures. Failure to obtain additional equity or debt financing will have a material, adverse impact on the Company’s business operations. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the needed financing to achieve our goals on acceptable terms or at all.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

Leases

During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, Legacy NeuBase utilized the services of LifeX Labs LLC. These services included accounting consultation and office space rental. This agreement was terminated on January 8, 2019. Dietrich Stephan, our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), was on the board and acting as CEO of LifeX Labs LLC until December 28, 2018, when he resigned all positions within LifeX. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, and 2020, the Company incurred expenses of approximately $0.01 million and $0, respectively.

On March 12, 2019, we entered into a sublease agreement with StartUptown for the lease of our office in downtown Pittsburgh, PA for a one year term with an option to renew for up to six months.  We paid an initial security deposit of $2,532 upon signing the sublease agreement, and based on the rental rate, expected to incur a monthly rental rate of $2,532 at that time over the life of the sublease if not extended. During the years ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, we entered into multiple amendments to the sublease with StartUptown to increase our office space and extend the term of sublease, with increasing rental rates. All other material terms of the original sublease remained the same in the sublease amendments. As of September 30, 2020, the sublease agreement provides for the sublease of 2,350 square feet of office and laboratory space until December 31, 2020 with a monthly rent of $7,812 per month.

On October 2, 2020, we entered into a lease agreement for office and laboratory space in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The leased premises will serve as our headquarters upon the commencement of the lease. The initial term of the lease commences upon the landlord’s delivery of the leased premises in tenant improvement readiness condition. The initial term of the Lease will extend approximately ten years from delivery of the leased premises to us, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the lease. We will have the right to extend the term of the lease for additional five-year terms. Under the lease, we will lease approximately 14,189 square feet of the property. We will pay an escalating base rent over the life of the lease of approximately $63,000 to $70,000 per month, and we will pay our pro rata portion of property expenses and operating expenses for the property.

Cash Flow Summary

The following table summarizes selected items in our consolidated statements of cash flows:

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was approximately $10.7 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 as compared to $2.8 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. Net cash used in operating activities in 2020 was primarily as a result of our net loss, offset by stock based compensation and changes in operating assets and liabilities. Net cash used in operating activities in 2019 was primarily as a result of our net loss, offset by stock based compensation, research and development expense for licenses acquired and changes in operating assets and liabilities.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was approximately $0.7 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to $0.7 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. Net cash used in investing activities in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 was the result of purchases of laboratory equipment. Net cash used in investing activities in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 was primarily the result of purchases of laboratory equipment and cash consideration and expenses paid in connection with the acquisition of the CMU License. These expenditures were partially offset by cash acquired in connection with the Merger with Ohr.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was approximately $33.1 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, as compared to $13.6 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. Net cash provided by financing activities for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 reflects the proceeds from the issuance of common stock of $33.3 million, net of issuance costs, and the principal payments of financed insurance. Net cash provided by financing activities for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 primarily reflects the proceeds from the issuance of common stock in our pre-acquisition and private placement financings and issuance of convertible notes.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of September 30, 2020, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Item 303(a)(4)(ii) of Regulation S-K.

Recent Accounting Standards

See Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements for a discussion of recent accounting standards and their effect, if any, on us.

Critical Accounting Estimates and Policies

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the balance sheet and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting period. In accordance with GAAP, we evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. The most significant estimates relate to the valuation of share-based compensation, the valuation of licenses, the fair value of warrant liabilities and the valuation allowance of deferred tax assets resulting from net operating losses. We base our estimates and assumptions on current facts, our limited historical experience from operations and various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We define our critical accounting policies as those accounting principles that require it to make subjective estimates and judgments about matters that are uncertain and are likely to have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the specific manner in which we apply those principles. While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K, we believe the following are the critical accounting policies used in the preparation of our financial statements that require significant estimates and judgments:

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, the carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and notes payable approximates fair value due to the short-term maturity of these instruments. ASC 820 clarifies the definition of fair value, prescribes methods for measuring fair value, and establishes a fair value hierarchy to classify the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows:

As of September 30, 2020, the fair value of outstanding warrant liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis was $1.0 million. The warrant liabilities are valued using Level 3 valuation inputs. At September 30, 2019, the fair value of outstanding warrant liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis was $0.5 million.

As of September 30, 2020 and 2019, the recorded values of cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and the insurance note payable, approximate the fair values due to the short-term nature of the instruments.

Research and Development

Research and development expenses are expensed in the statement of operations as incurred in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC 730, Research and Development. Research and development expenses consist of salaries and related benefits for personnel in research and development functions, including stock-based compensation and benefits and fees paid to consultants and contract research organizations for preclinical development work on our PATrOL^TM platform and programs, as well as other costs. We incurred research and development expenses of $3.4 million for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, we incurred $6.9 million in research and development expenses.

Share-Based Compensation

We follow the provisions of ASC 718 – Stock Compensation which requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, be recognized in the income statement based on their fair values. We have early adopted Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) 2018-07, which expands the scope of ASC 718 to include share based payments granted to nonemployees and supersedes the guidance in ASC 505-50. We estimate the fair value of stock option grants using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, and the assumptions used in calculating the fair value of stock-based awards represent management’s best estimates and involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management’s judgment.

Stock-based compensation expense is recognized in our financial statements on a straight-line basis for each separately vesting portion of the award. The stock-based compensation awards generally vest over a period of up to four years. All stock-based compensation costs are recorded in general and administrative or research and development costs in the consolidated statements of operations based upon the underlying individual’s role at the Company.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are recorded in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 740, Income Taxes (“ASC 740”), which provides for deferred taxes using an asset and liability approach. We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial statements or tax returns. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are provided, if based upon the weight of available evidence, it is more likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

We account for uncertain tax positions in accordance with the provisions of ASC 740. When uncertain tax positions exist, we recognize the tax benefit of tax positions to the extent that the benefit would more likely than not be realized assuming examination by the taxing authority. The determination as to whether the tax benefit will more likely than not be realized is based upon the technical merits of the tax position as well as consideration of the available facts and circumstances. We recognize any interest and penalties accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits as income tax expense.

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Not applicable.

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of September 30, 2020 and 2019, the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2020, and the related notes  (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”).  In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of September 30, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

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

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

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

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries

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

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

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

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

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

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

1. Organization and Description of Business

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company” or “NeuBase”) is developing a modular peptide-nucleic acid (“PNA”) antisense oligo (“PATrOL™”) platform to address genetic diseases caused by mutant proteins, with a single, cohesive approach. The PATrOL™-enabled anti-gene therapies are designed to improve upon current genetic medicine strategies by combining the advantages of synthetic approaches with the precision of antisense technologies. NeuBase plans to use its platform to address diseases which have a genetic source, with an initial focus on Huntington’s Disease (“HD”) and Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 (“DM1”), as well as other genetic disorders and cancer.

NeuBase is a pre-clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and continues to develop its clinical and regulatory strategy with its internal research and development team with a view toward prioritizing market introduction as quickly as possible. NeuBase’s lead programs are NT0100 and NT0200.

The NT0100 program is a PATrOL™-enabled therapeutic program being developed to target the mutant expansion in the HD messenger ribonucleic acid (“RNA”). The NT0100 includes several proprietary PNAs which have the potential to be highly selective for the mutant transcript vs. the wild-type transcribed allele and the expectation to be applicable for nearly all HD patients as it directly targets the expansion itself, and has the potential to be delivered systemically. PATrOL™-enabled drugs also have the unique ability to open RNA secondary structures and bind to either the primary nucleotide sequences or the secondary and/or tertiary structures. NeuBase believes the NT0100 program addresses an unmet need for a disease which currently has no effective therapeutics that target the core etiology of the condition. NeuBase believes there is a large opportunity in the U.S. and European markets for drugs in this space.

The NT0200 program is a PATrOL™-enabled therapeutic program being developed to target the mutant expansion in the DM1 disease mRNA. The NT0200 program includes several proprietary PNAs which have the potential to be highly selective for the mutant transcript versus the wild-type transcribed allele and the expectation to be effective for nearly all DM1 patients as it directly targets the expansion itself. NeuBase believes the NT0200 program addresses an unmet need for a disease which currently has no effective therapeutics that target the core etiology of the condition. NeuBase believes there is also a large opportunity in the U.S. and European markets for drugs in this space.

Acquisition of Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Reverse Stock Split

On July 12, 2019, the Company (formerly known as Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Ohr”)) completed a reverse acquisition transaction in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of January 2, 2019, by and among the Company, Ohr Acquisition Corp. (“Merger Sub”), and NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. (“Legacy NeuBase”), as amended by the First Amendment thereto made and entered into as of June 27, 2019 (as amended, the “Acquisition Agreement”), pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Legacy NeuBase, with Legacy NeuBase (“renamed as NeuBase Corporation”) surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Ohr Acquisition”). On July 12, 2019, immediately after completion of the Ohr Acquisition, the Company changed its name to “NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.”

Under the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, the Company issued shares of common stock to Legacy NeuBase’s stockholders at an exchange rate of 1.019055643 shares of common stock for each share of Legacy NeuBase’s common stock outstanding immediately prior to the Ohr Acquisition (the “Exchange Ratio”). The Company also assumed all of the stock options outstanding and unexercised under the NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive Plan with such stock options henceforth representing the right to purchase a number of shares of common stock equal to the Exchange Ratio multiplied by the number of shares of Legacy NeuBase’s common stock previously represented by such options (and rounding the resulting number down to the nearest whole share) at an exercise price equal to the previous per share exercise price of such options divided by the Exchange Ratio (and rounding the resulting number up to the nearest whole cent).

Immediately after the Ohr Acquisition, there were 15,524,219 shares of common stock outstanding. Immediately after the Ohr Acquisition, the former stockholders, optionholders, warrantholders and noteholders of Legacy NeuBase owned, or held rights to acquire, approximately 85% of the fully-diluted common stock of the combined company, with the Company’s stockholders, optionholders and warrantholders immediately prior to the Ohr Acquisition owning, or holding rights to acquire, approximately 15% of the fully-diluted common stock of the combined company.

The Ohr Acquisition was accounted for as a “reverse asset acquisition”, whereby Legacy NeuBase was determined to be the accounting acquirer based upon the terms of the Ohr Acquisition and other factors including: (i) Legacy NeuBase stockholders and other persons holding securities convertible, exercisable or exchangeable directly or indirectly for Legacy NeuBase common stock owned approximately 85% of the Company immediately following the effective time of the Ohr Acquisition, (ii) Legacy NeuBase holds all (five) board seats of the combined company and (iii) Legacy NeuBase’ management holds key positions in the management of the combined company. The historical financial statements, outstanding shares and all other historical share information have been adjusted by multiplying the respective share amount by the Exchange Ratio as if the Exchange Ratio had been in effect for all periods presented.

Prior to the Ohr Acquisition, on January 18, 2019, following a special meeting of the Company’s stockholders, the board of directors of the Company approved a one-for-twenty reverse stock split of the Company’s issued and outstanding shares of common stock (the “Reverse Stock Split”). On January 23, 2019, the Company filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware a Certificate of Amendment to its Certificate of Incorporation to effect the Reverse Stock Split. The Company’s common stock began trading on a split-adjusted basis when the market opened on February 4, 2019.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The Company’s consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated during the consolidation process. The Company manages its operations as a single segment for the purposes of assessing performance and making operating decisions.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of expenses during the reporting period. The most significant estimates in the Company’s consolidated financial statements relate to the valuation of share-based compensation, the valuation of licenses, the fair value of warrant liabilities and the valuation allowance of deferred tax assets resulting from net operating losses. These estimates and assumptions are based on current facts, historical experience and various other factors believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities and the recording of expenses that are not readily apparent from other sources. The Company assesses and updates estimates each period to reflect current information, such as the economic considerations related to the impact that the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) could have on our significant accounting estimates (See Part I, Item 1A- Risk Factors “Our operations may be adversely affected by the coronavirus outbreak, and we face risks that could impact our business” for further discussion of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our operations). Actual results may differ materially and adversely from these estimates. To the extent there are material differences between the estimates and actual results, the Company’s future results of operations will be affected.

Revision to Prior Year Financial Statements

During the course of preparing the annual report on Form 10-K for the years ended September 30, 2020, and 2019, the Company identified an error in one of the Black-Scholes option pricing model assumptions, utilized in calculating the fair value of a stock option award granted during the year ended September 30, 2019, which resulted in an overstatement of share-based compensation expense for the year ended September 30, 2019.

The Company concluded that the error was not material to any prior annual period and the error had no impact to any prior interim period. Nevertheless, the Company has revised its historical financial statements to properly reflect the share-based compensation expense for the corrected fair value of options granted in the prior period.

The effect of the revisions to the financial statements is as follows:

Consolidated Balance Sheet

Consolidated Statement of Operations

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to credit risk consist principally of cash and cash equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents are maintained in accounts with financial institutions, which, at times may exceed the Federal depository insurance coverage of $250,000. The Company has not experienced losses on these accounts and management believes, based upon the quality of the financial institutions, that the credit risk with regard to these deposits is not significant.

Fair Value Measurements

Fair value measurements are based on the premise that fair value is an exit price representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, the following three-tier fair value hierarchy has been used in determining the inputs used in measuring fair value:

Financial instruments measured at fair value are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Management’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment and considers factors specific to the asset or liability. The use of different assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on estimated fair values. Accordingly, the fair value estimates disclosed or initial amounts recorded may not be indicative of the amount that the Company or holders of the instruments could realize in a current market exchange.

The following tables present the Company’s fair value hierarchy for its warrant liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at September 30, 2020 and 2019:

The following assumptions were used in determining the fair value of the warrant liabilities as of September 30, 2020 and 2019:

The change in fair value of the warrant liabilities for the years ended September 30, 2020 and 2019 is as follows:

As of September 30, 2020 and 2019, the recorded values of cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and the insurance note payable approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of the instruments.

Equipment

Equipment is stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is provided on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The Company estimates useful lives as follows:

Intangible Assets

Identifiable intangible assets includes clinical trial data acquired in the Ohr Acquisition. The intangible asset was amortized over its estimated useful life (approximately six months), which approximates the pattern in which the assets’ economic benefits were consumed. The fair value of the intangible asset was determined using actual and potential market transactions which are management’s best estimates of inputs and assumptions that a market participant would use. The estimates are based on assumptions that the Company believes to be reasonable, but such assumptions are subject to unpredictability and uncertainty.

For amortizable intangible assets, the Company performs an impairment analysis when circumstances suggest that the carrying values of those assets may not be recoverable. Recoverability of an asset to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If such asset is considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds its fair value. As of September 30, 2020 and 2019, the carrying value of the intangible asset was $0 and $0.1 million, respectively.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

The Company reviews the carrying value of long-lived assets for indicators of possible impairment whenever events and circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable from the estimated future net undiscounted cash flows expected to result from its use and eventual disposition. In cases where estimated future net undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying value, an impairment loss is recognized equal to an amount by which the carrying value exceeds the fair value of the asset or asset group. The factors that would be considered by management in performing this assessment include current operating results, trends and prospects, the manner in which the property is used and the effects of obsolescence, demand, competition and other economic factors. Based on this assessment, there was no impairment at September 30, 2020 and 2019.

Investment

The Company’s investment consists of common and preferred shares of DepYmed, Inc.

Investments that the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence over are accounted for as equity method investments. Equity method investments are recorded at cost plus the proportional share of the issuer’s income or loss.

Investments that do not have a readily determinable fair value and qualify for the measurement alternative for equity investments provided in ASC 321, are accounted for at cost, less any impairment, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for an identical or similar investment of the same issuer.

Operating Leases

Effective October 1, 2019, the Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. Operating leases are included in operating right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and operating lease liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. Prior to October 1, 2019, the Company recorded rent expense associated with its operating lease on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

Lease ROU assets and operating lease liabilities are initially recognized based on the present value of the future minimum lease payments over the lease term at commencement date calculated using the Company’s incremental borrowing rate applicable to the lease asset, unless the implicit rate is readily determinable. ROU assets also include any lease payments made at or before lease commencement and exclude any lease incentives received. The Company’s lease terms may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise that option. Leases with a term of 12 months or less are not recognized on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. Lease expense for minimum lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company accounts for lease and non-lease components as a single lease component for all its leases.

As of September 30, 2020, the Company’s leases had original terms of 12 months or less. The Company does not recognize ROU assets and lease liabilities that arise from leases with an original term of 12 months or less. Rather, the Company recognizes the lease expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.

Research and Development

The Company expenses research and development costs as operating expenses as incurred. Research and development expenses consist primarily of:

Research and Development Expense- Licenses Acquired

The Company evaluates whether acquired intangible assets are a business under applicable accounting standards. Additionally, the Company evaluates whether the acquired assets have an alternative future use. Intangible assets that do not have alternative future use are considered acquired in-process research and development. When the acquired in-process research and development assets are not part of a business combination, the value of the consideration paid is expensed on the acquisition date. Future costs to develop these assets are recorded to research and development expense as they are incurred.

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company expenses stock-based compensation to employees, non-employees and board members over the requisite service period based on the estimated grant-date fair value of the awards and actual forfeitures. The Company accounts for forfeitures as they occur. Stock-based awards with graded-vesting schedules are recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for each separately vesting portion of the award.

The Company estimates the fair value of stock option grants using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, and the assumptions used in calculating the fair value of stock-based awards represent management’s best estimates and involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management’s judgment. The Company was historically a private company and lacked company-specific historical and implied volatility information. Therefore, it estimates its expected stock volatility based on the historical volatility of a publicly traded set of peer companies. Additionally, due to an insufficient history with respect to stock option activity and post-vesting cancellations, the expected term assumption for employee grants is based on a permitted simplified method, which is based on the vesting period and contractual term for each tranche of awards. The mid-point between the weighted-average vesting term and the expiration date is used as the expected term under this method. The risk-free interest rate is determined by reference to the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect for time periods approximately equal to the expected term of the award. Expected dividend yield is zero based on the fact that the Company has never paid cash dividends and does not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

All stock-based compensation costs are recorded in general and administrative or research and development costs in the consolidated statements of operations based upon the underlying individual’s role at the Company.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred income taxes are recorded for temporary differences between financial statement carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets and liabilities reflect the tax rates expected to be in effect for the years in which the differences are expected to reverse. A valuation allowance is provided if it is more likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

The Company also follows the provisions of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes which prescribes a model for the recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return, and provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, disclosure and transition. In accordance with this guidance, tax positions must meet a more likely than not recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of tax position.

The Company’s policy is to account for income tax related interest and penalties in income tax expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

Net Loss Per Share

Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss applicable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during each period. Diluted net loss per share includes the dilutive effect, if any, from the potential exercise or conversion of securities, such as convertible debt, warrants and stock options that would result in the issuance of incremental shares of common stock. In computing the basic and diluted net loss per share applicable to common stockholders, the weighted average number of shares remains the same for both calculations due to the fact that when a net loss exists, dilutive shares are not included in the calculation as the impact is anti-dilutive.

Recent Accounting Standards

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-2, Leases. The new standard establishes a right-of-use (“ROU”) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement. The Company adopted this new lease standard on October 1, 2019 using a modified retrospective transition approach for leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. The adoption of the new lease standard did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as the Company did not have any leases with original terms longer than 12 months at the adoption date and as of September 30, 2020.

In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-12, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes” (“ASU 2019-12”), which is intended to simplify various aspects related to accounting for income taxes. ASU 2019-12 removes certain exceptions to the general principles in Topic 740 and also clarifies and amends existing guidance to improve consistent application. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2020, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

3. Liquidity

The Company has had no revenues from product sales and has incurred operating losses since inception. As of September 30, 2020, the Company had $32.0 million in cash and cash equivalents and during the year ended September 30, 2020 incurred a loss from operations of $17.1 million and used $10.7 million of cash in operating activities.

The Company has historically funded its operations through the sale of common stock and the issuance of convertible notes and warrants. The Company expects to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable. As a result, the Company will likely need to raise additional capital through one or more of the following: the issuance of additional debt or equity or the completion of a licensing transaction for one or more of the Company’s pipeline assets. Management believes that it has sufficient working capital on hand to fund operations through at least the next twelve months from the date these consolidated financial statements were issued. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in acquiring additional funding, that the Company’s projections of its future working capital needs will prove accurate, or that any additional funding would be sufficient to continue operations in future years.

4. Acquisition of Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc.

As described in Note 1, on July 12, 2019, the Company completed the acquisition of Ohr in accordance with the terms of the Acquisition Agreement. The acquisition was accounted for as a reverse asset acquisition.

Pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, the Company issued to Legacy NeuBase stockholders, optionholders, warrant holders and noteholders of Legacy NeuBase a number of shares of Ohr common stock representing approximately 85% of the fully diluted common stock of Ohr. The cost of the Ohr acquisition, which represents the consideration transferred to Ohr’s stockholders in the Ohr Acquisition, was calculated based on the fair value of common stock of the combined company that Ohr stockholders own as of the closing of the Ohr Acquisition on July 12, 2019. With no active trading market for shares of Legacy NeuBase common stock, fair value of the Ohr common stock represents a more reliable measure of the fair value of consideration transferred in the acquisition. The cost of the Ohr acquisition of $12.7 million consists of the following:

The total cost of the Ohr Acquisition was allocated to the net assets acquired as follows:

The Company identified an intangible asset related to Ohr’s clinical trial data with an estimated fair value of $0.3 million. This intangible asset was amortized on a straight-line basis over its estimated useful life of six months.

As of the asset acquisition date, Ohr’s SKS sustained release ocular drug delivery platform technology (“SKS Technology”) acquired had not yet attained regulatory approval. Accordingly, this intangible asset represents an in-process research and development asset with no future alternative use and was immediately expensed under the guidance of Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) 730, Research and Development, upon the asset acquisition.

5. License Agreement with Carnegie Mellon University

On December 17, 2018, Legacy NeuBase entered into a License Agreement with Carnegie Mellon University (the “CMU License Agreement”). Under the CMU License Agreement, Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”) granted Legacy NeuBase an exclusive, worldwide right to the PATrOL™ technology, with patents and patent applications describing composition of matter and uses of the platform.

As partial consideration for the license right, Legacy NeuBase issued and delivered to CMU 820,000 shares of Legacy NeuBase common stock (or 835,625 shares of common stock of the Company converted at the Exchange Ratio provided for in the Acquisition Agreement), which constituted 8.2% of the then fully-diluted capitalization of Legacy NeuBase. Further, as partial consideration for the license right, Legacy NeuBase issued a warrant to CMU, exercisable only upon the earlier of (i) the day that Legacy NeuBase receives cumulative capital funding or revenues equal to $2 million or (ii) 30 days prior to any change of control event that provides for the issuance of shares, for a number of shares of Legacy NeuBase common stock sufficient such that when added to the 820,000 shares of Legacy NeuBase common stock, CMU holds in the aggregate an amount equal to 8.2% of the fully-diluted capitalization of Legacy NeuBase; provided, however, that for purposes of calculating 8.2%, only the first $2 million of capital funding shall be considered in the determination of Legacy NeuBase’s fully-diluted capitalization. Under the CMU License Agreement, CMU has preemptive rights with respect to certain future sales of securities by Legacy NeuBase for capital-raising purposes, “piggyback” registration rights and co-sale rights with respect to certain resales of shares of Legacy NeuBase by Legacy NeuBase’s stockholders.

Pursuant to the CMU License Agreement, Legacy NeuBase must achieve certain milestones to demonstrate certain developments of the licensed product. Legacy NeuBase may obtain one six-month extension to meet each milestone with a nominal payment to CMU. Further, subject to certain conditions, Legacy NeuBase will pay to CMU royalties at a percentage of net sales in the low single digits and sublicensing fees.

The Company recognized research and development expense totaling approximately $1.0 million during the year ended September 30, 2019 for the value of consideration paid in connection with the license agreement. The consideration paid for the license right is as follows:

6. Equipment

The Company’s equipment consisted of the following:

Depreciation expense for the years ended September 30, 2020 and 2019 was approximately $0.1 million and $0.02 million, respectively.

7. Intangible Assets

The Company’s intangible assets consisted of the following:

Amortization expense for the years ended September 30, 2020 and 2019 was approximately $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively.

8. Investment

On February 26, 2014, Ohr entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and related agreements with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (“CSHL”) pursuant to which a joint venture, DepYmed Inc. (“DepYmed”), was formed to further preclinical and clinical development of the Company’s intellectual property for rare diseases and oncology. DepYmed licenses research from CSHL and intellectual property from the Company.

Following the Ohr Acquisition, the Company owns common and preferred shares of DepYmed, which in aggregate represents approximately 15% ownership of DepYmed. In addition, the Company is entitled to hold two of the six seats on DepYmed’s board of directors.

The Company accounts for its investment in DepYmed common shares using the equity method of accounting and records its proportionate share of DepYmed’s net income and losses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

The Company accounts for its investment in preferred shares of DepYmed at cost, less any impairment, as the Company determined the preferred stock did not have a readily determinable fair value.

The carrying value of the Company’s total investment is DepYmed is as follows:

9. Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities

The Company’s accrued expenses and other current liabilities consisted of the following:

10. Notes Payable

Insurance Note Payable

As of September 30, 2020 and 2019, the Company had the following insurance notes payable outstanding: