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

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

or

Commission file number 001-38266

SPERO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (857) 242-1600

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

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

None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the price of the registrant’s Common Stock as of June 30, 2020, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $256.2 million (based on the last reported sale price on the Nasdaq Global Market as of such date). As of March 8, 2021, there were 29,504,257 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The registrant intends to file a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A relating to the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders within 120 days of the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. Portions of such definitive proxy statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.

Table of Contents

i

PART I

Forward-Looking Information

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part I Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for certain diseases, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, and the incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources.

1

Risk Factor Summary

We are providing the following summary of the risk factors contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to enhance the readability and accessibility of our risk factor disclosures. We encourage you to carefully review the full risk factors contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in their entirety for additional information regarding the material factors that make an investment in our securities speculative or risky. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

2

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a multi-asset, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on identifying, developing and commercializing treatments in high unmet need areas involving multi-drug resistant, or MDR, bacterial infections and rare diseases. Our most advanced product candidate, Tebipenem Pivoxil Hydrobromide, or tebipenem HBr, is designed to be the first oral carbapenem-class antibiotic for use in adults to treat MDR Gram-negative infections. Treatment with effective orally administrable antibiotics may prevent hospitalizations for serious infections and enable earlier, more convenient and cost-effective treatment of patients after hospitalization. We are also developing SPR720, a novel oral antibiotic designed for the treatment of a rare, orphan disease caused by non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary infections, or NTM disease. In addition, we are advancing SPR206, a next generation polymyxin investigational product candidate, being developed as an IV-administered medicine to treat MDR Gram-negative infections in the hospital. We believe that our novel product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, would have a meaningful patient impact and significant commercial applications for the treatment of MDR infections in both the community and hospital settings.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are one of the largest threats to global health, and their prevalence is increasing. While the majority of life-threatening infections historically resulting from antibiotic-resistant bacteria are acquired in the hospital setting, there is an increasing incidence of MDR pathogens in the community setting. Antibiotics used currently for first-line empiric treatment of MDR bacterial infections suffer from significant limitations and risks, including narrow spectrums of coverage and safety and tolerability concerns, and they can be associated with serious adverse effects. In addition, there are no oral antibiotics commercially available that can reliably be used in adults with MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections. This limits the ability of physicians to prevent hospitalizations and transition patients to their home from the hospital after receiving IV-administered therapy. The increasing prevalence of drug resistance and MDR Gram-negative bacteria, as well as the limitations of existing therapies and traditional drug development approaches, highlight the critical need for novel therapies, and in particular orally administrable agents, that are capable of overcoming these obstacles to effective patient treatment.

The Problem:  Increasingly Limited Antibiotic Options for Severe Infections

Antibiotic Background

Antibiotics are drugs used to treat infections that are caused by bacteria. Prior to the introduction of the first antibiotics in the 1930s and 1940s, bacterial infections were often fatal. Today, antibiotics are used routinely to treat and prevent infections. There are two main varieties of bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria, which are distinguished by structural differences in their cell envelope. Gram-positive bacteria are surrounded by a single lipid membrane and a thick cell wall, while Gram-negative bacteria are encircled by two lipid membranes, an inner membrane and an outer membrane, with a thinner cell wall in between, as shown in the illustration below.

3

Antibiotics that target Gram-negative bacteria must be specifically designed to cross both the inner and outer membranes to enter the bacteria. The outer membrane, with its LPS-containing outer leaflet, represents a significant barrier to the entry into the bacteria by antibiotics and is a significant contributor toward reduced potency of many agents in treating Gram-negative bacterial infections. Recent studies have found that Gram-negative bacteria in certain patient types, such as those with sepsis and Interstitial Lung Disease, are associated with higher mortality and increased intensive care unit, or ICU, admission. Moreover, a study of 13,796 patients in intensive care units around the world reported in 2009 that 51% of patients experienced bacterial infections, and of these patients 62% were infected by Gram-negative organisms.

Antibiotics are evaluated according to several criteria, including:

Growing Antibiotic Resistance in the Hospital and Community Settings

Antibiotic resistance is one of the largest threats to global health, and resistance rates are increasing. Antibiotic resistance can affect anyone, of any age and in any country. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019 report, more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the United States each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result. Approximately 70% of the pathogens that cause these infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic used to treat them. Resistance rates are climbing in both hospital-acquired and community-acquired infections. According to UNC Infectious Diseases investigator David van Duin, MD, PhD and colleagues in 2016: “Some MDR bacteria have become quite prevalent causes of community-acquired infections. The spread of MDR bacteria into the community is a crucial development, and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, healthcare costs and antibiotic use.” The incidence rate of serious infections is increasing, and the proportion of the infections caused by MDR pathogens is increasingly seen as an emerging threat to world health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, estimates that the annual impact of antibiotic-resistant infections on the United States economy is $20-35 billion in excess direct health care costs.

According to the CDC, among all of the bacterial resistance problems, Gram-negative pathogens, which cause a majority of all bacterial infections, are particularly worrisome because they are becoming resistant to nearly all drugs that would be considered for treatment. In February 2017, the World Health Organization, or WHO, published a list of Gram- negative bacteria based on the urgency of need for new antibiotics and highlighted a critical group of MDR Gram-negative bacteria that pose a particular threat to human health, including Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas and multiple Enterobacteriaceae (including Klebsiella sp., E. coli, Serratia and Proteus). These pathogens are associated with significant mortality because the increased incidence of antibiotic resistance has limited the number of effective treatment options.

There is an acute need for new antibiotics to treat MDR bacterial infections, as few new antibiotics capable of addressing such infections have been approved recently for commercialization or are in clinical development. Further, the majority of MDR bacterial infections historically have been acquired in the hospital setting, where they have been treated using IV-administered antibiotics. However, increasingly such infections are being acquired in the community setting, emphasizing the need for orally administrable antibiotics that can effectively treat such infections.

4

Chronic Bacterial Infection without a Viable Cure

NTM infections represent a growing global health concern and major unmet medical need because of the lack of new medications being developed to combat these bacteria. NTM infections are ubiquitous environmental pathogens that can cause progressive lung damage and respiratory failure, particularly in patients with compromised immune systems or underlying pulmonary disorders.

Although rare, the incidence of pulmonary NTM disease is increasing worldwide. It is estimated that approximately 130,000 patients suffer from NTM disease in the United States and Europe, a figure that is growing at a rate of 8% annually. In addition, many patients go undiagnosed and could benefit from treatment with additional testing. The elderly and people with compromised immune or lung function are at greatest risk, as are patients with bronchiectasis for whom it is estimated that up to 50% may also have active lung infection caused by NTM. Treatment of pulmonary NTM disease requires prolonged therapy (continuing for approximately 12 to 24 months) with a combination regimen and is frequently complicated by tolerability and/or toxicity issues. Additionally, there are currently no oral antibiotics specifically approved for use to treat pulmonary NTM disease. M. avium complex is the most common NTM to cause human infection in the United States, and it makes up around 80% of the infections.

The most common treatment for NTM infections is combination therapy with drugs traditionally used for tuberculosis, or TB, which have limited efficacy and high toxicity. NTM infection is also associated with high healthcare costs and high mortality. In 2014, the annual cost in the United States of treating NTM infections alone was estimated at $1.7 billion.

Our Solution

Antibiotics currently used for first-line empiric treatment of MDR acute bacterial infections and NTM infection suffer from significant limitations. We believe that our product candidates will overcome these limitations, as described below:

5

Our Pipeline – Multiple Near-term Catalysts Across the Rare and Infectious Disease Portfolio

The following table sets forth our product candidates, their status and certain anticipated milestones related to them.

Our Product Candidates

Tebipenem HBr (tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide): Novel Antibiotic with Potential to be the First Oral Carbapenem for Use in Adults

Our lead product candidate, tebipenem HBr, is an oral carbapenem intended for use in adults to treat MDR Gram-negative infections. In September 2020, we announced positive top-line data from the single pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial, which is entitled ADAPT-PO, that is required for approval of tebipenem HBr to treat complicated urinary tract infection, or cUTI, and acute pyelonephritis, or AP. The ADAPT-PO trial achieved its primary objective, demonstrating that oral tebipenem HBr was statistically non-inferior to intravenous ertapenem in the treatment of patients with cUTI and patients with AP with respect to the primary endpoint of overall response at the test-of-cure, or TOC, visit in the microbiological-intent-to-treat, or micro-ITT, population. Comparative safety and tolerability data from 1,372 hospitalized adult patients enrolled in the study were similar between the tebipenem HBr and ertapenem treatment groups. The ADAPT-PO trial was designed as a double-blind, double-dummy trial to compare oral tebipenem HBr with an existing standard of care intravenous, or IV, antibiotic, ertapenem, in 1,372 hospitalized adult patients with cUTI or AP, randomized 1:1 in each arm. We intend to make a New Drug Application, or NDA, submission to the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTI and AP in the second half of 2021.

Carbapenems have been utilized for over 30 years and are considered the standard of care for many serious MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections, but to date they have only been available as IV-administered formulations. Currently, there are no commercially available oral carbapenems for use in adults, and we believe tebipenem HBr has the potential to address this unmet need. Tebipenem HBr is an oral tablet formulation of tebipenem, a carbapenem-class antibiotic marketed by Meiji Seika Pharma Co. Ltd., or Meiji, in Japan as Orapenem® since 2009 for common pediatric infections. To accelerate our clinical development of tebipenem HBr, in June 2017 we signed an exclusive license to certain data and know-how from Meiji and a global pharmaceutical company, to which we refer as Global Pharma, which we intend to use to support our clinical development of tebipenem HBr. We have global commercialization rights to tebipenem HBr, except in certain contractually specified Asian countries.

The FDA has designated tebipenem HBr as a Qualified Infectious Disease Product, or QIDP, for the treatment of cUTI, community acquired bacterial pneumonia, or CABP, and moderate to severe diabetic foot infections, or DFI, under the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act, or the GAIN Act. Among other benefits of a QIDP designation, the first marketing application for the QIDP-designated drug qualifies for priority review by the FDA. If tebipenem HBr is approved for treatment of cUTI, CABP or DFI, the QIDP designation previously granted to tebipenem HBr for those indications will entitle the drug product to receive a one-time five-year extension to any non-patent exclusivity period awarded for tebipenem HBr in the United States (the so-called GAIN exclusivity extension), such as a five-year New Chemical Entity, or NCE, exclusivity granted under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, for a total of 10 years, among other possible qualifying periods of regulatory exclusivity. In Europe, exclusivity for NCEs is 10 years (eight years for data exclusivity and an additional two years for market exclusivity), with the possibility of a one-year extension if the chemical entity is approved for use in an additional indication. The QIDP designation for tebipenem HBr, however, does not guarantee a faster development process or ensure FDA approval. Tebipenem HBr has been granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA for the treatment of cUTI and AP.

6

In January 2021, tebipenem HBr was granted a patent covering a crystalline form and pharmaceutical compositions of tebipenem HBr, with an expiration of February 2038. We believe that our intellectual property portfolio for tebipenem HBr, which includes multiple patent applications pending, will provide tebipenem HBr protection globally, including in the United States and Europe, through 2038.

Advantages of tebipenem HBr

Key attributes of tebipenem HBr support our confidence in tebipenem HBr’s commercial potential, if tebipenem HBr receives regulatory approval. We believe tebipenem HBr has the potential to be a safe and effective treatment for cUTI and other serious and life-threatening infections for which we may develop tebipenem HBr.

A granule formulation of tebipenem has been approved for use in Japan in pediatric patients since 2009, where it has demonstrated a favorable safety and efficacy profile. Approximately 1,200 subjects were dosed with the active pharmaceutical ingredient of tebipenem HBr, tebipenem, in clinical and pharmacologic studies during development of this drug by Meiji and its partner in Japan. This data set includes 741 adults, including 88 patients with cUTIs, the initial indication for which we are developing tebipenem HBr. In each case tebipenem has demonstrated a favorable safety, pharmacokinetic and tolerability profile. In addition, Meiji has conducted a 3,540 patient post-marketing study supporting the safety and tolerability profile of tebipenem, specifically demonstrating a safety profile that aligns well with that observed across the clinical trial program and tolerability in line with other broad spectrum oral antibiotics.

7

We believe the foregoing advantages of tebipenem HBr also significantly differentiate tebipenem HBr from fluoroquinolones. Fluoroquinolones are the most widely used antibiotic class in treating community and hospital Gram-negative infections, but they have encountered increasing resistance among MDR Gram-negative bacteria and are associated with significant adverse effects. The table below reflects resistance rates in the United States in the community and hospital settings.

Currently, fluoroquinolones are the most frequently selected antibiotic for empirical urinary tract infection, or UTI, treatment in the community and hospital settings. Current UTI treatment guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America identify fluoroquinolones as an appropriate empirical therapy option. This recommendation, however, is contingent on local resistance rates being less than 10%. The endemicity (high rates) of fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli found in the United States today in the community and hospital settings based on the table above would suggest that fluoroquinolones should not be used empirically for cUTI patients.

The following table highlights the observed in vitro potency differences between tebipenem HBr and levofloxacin, the most widely used fluoroquinolone. As shown below, tebipenem HBr has a MIC90 value of 0.03 µg/ mL, which compares favorably (i.e., at or below) to the potency value obtained by levofloxacin. 

In addition, the FDA has issued several warnings against the use of fluoroquinolones in certain patients. In particular, an FDA Advisory Committee stated in November 2015 that the risk of serious side effects caused by fluoroquinolones generally outweighs the benefits for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and uncomplicated UTIs, and the agency subsequently issued a drug safety communication to the public and required safety labeling revisions be made to all products within this drug class. The FDA has determined that fluoroquinolones should be reserved for use in patients with these conditions who have no alternative treatment options and safety warnings in the labeling of fluoroquinolone class products have been further strengthened over the past several years. We believe tebipenem HBr could become a potential alternative to oral fluoroquinolones based on its safety and efficacy profile.

Significant Market Opportunity for Tebipenem HBr

Given the observed activity of tebipenem HBr against different bacteria, we view the market opportunity for tebipenem HBr, if approved, to be substantial, including for the following uses:

UTIs are among the most common bacterial diseases worldwide, with significant clinical and economic burden. IQVIA (formerly QuintilesIMS) estimates that between 33 and 34 million patients either visit their physician or are hospitalized for a UTI or otherwise suspected of experiencing a UTI in the United States annually. While drugs such as trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim/Septra) and fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin) have been the primary oral options for treatment of UTIs caused by Gram-negative organisms, nearly 30% to 35% of UTIs are resistant, which has led to increased use of IV-administered therapeutics such as carbapenems.

IQVIA completed a market assessment in August 2017 in the community and hospital settings in which it estimated that there were 11 to 12 million patients annually who presented in the community physician’s office with a UTI and 3.5 to 4.5 million patients annually in the hospital with a UTI in the United States alone. Of these UTIs, 10 to 11 million are suspected to be caused by Gram-negative bacteria, and 4 to 5 million of these patients had an infection that is resistant to or failed first-line therapy, such as the fluoroquinolone class, or require IV therapy due to the severity of infection. Physicians in the survey reported high concern with growing fluoroquinolone resistance and lack of oral options for MDR Gram-negative infections. We believe tebipenem HBr is well positioned to meet the unmet need for an oral therapy for community-acquired UTI and may offer physicians an option for treating

8

MDR UTIs while avoiding patient hospitalization. In addition, we believe tebipenem HBr has the potential to accelerate hospital discharge and obviate the need for continued IV-administered therapy at home by transitioning discharged patients to an at-home oral therapy. Our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial for tebipenem HBr, ADAPT-PO, was conducted in a subset of UTIs called cUTIs, and our target focus within this group is the 2.7 million patients receiving second line or IV treatment in the United States annually. A significant majority of UTIs, including these cUTIs, are caused by a group of MDR Gram-negative bacteria called Enterobacteriaceae, which tebipenem HBr is effective against.

Tebipenem HBr Clinical Development Program

Single Pivotal Phase 3 Clinical Trial (ADAPT-PO)

In September 2020, we announced positive data from the ADAPT-PO Phase 3 trial evaluating an all oral regimen of tebipenem HBr head-to-head versus an all IV regimen of ertapenem for the treatment of adults with cUTI, including AP. The global, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT-PO Phase 3 clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of tebipenem HBr in hospitalized adult patients with cUTI or AP. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive tebipenem HBr (600 mg) orally every 8 hours, or ertapenem (1 g) IV every 24 hours, for a total of 7 to 10 days.

The ADAPT-PO trial achieved its primary objective, demonstrating that oral tebipenem HBr was statistically non-inferior to intravenous ertapenem in the treatment of patients with cUTI and patients with AP with respect to the primary endpoint of overall response at the TOC visit in the micro-ITT population. Overall response (combined clinical cure plus microbiological eradication) rates at TOC were 58.8% for oral tebipenem versus 61.6% for IV ertapenem (treatment difference, -3.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.7, 3.2; -12.5% NI margin).

Data presented at IDWeek 2020 expanded on the topline data, and demonstrated that both the clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were comparable between treatment groups at the end of treatment, or EOT, TOC and at the late follow-up, or LFU, visits. Specifically, clinical cure rates, which are the key determinant in routine clinical management of cUTI/AP patients, were >93% in both treatment groups at TOC. The high clinical cure rates at TOC were sustained through LFU (88.6% and 90% for tebipenem HBr and ertapenem, respectively), demonstrating a durable clinical response in patients with cUTI and AP. Favorable microbiological response rates at TOC were likewise comparable between treatment groups and were similarly sustained up to LFU in both treatment groups (57.2% and 58.2% for tebipenem HBr and ertapenem, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in overall response rates across key subgroups of interest, including those determined by age, baseline diagnosis, and presence of bacteremia at baseline. Per pathogen microbiological response rates were generally balanced across treatment groups for the predominant uropathogens.

Comparative safety and tolerability data from 1,372 hospitalized adult patients enrolled in the study were similar between the tebipenem HBr and ertapenem treatment groups. Treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, were reported in approximately 26% of patients in both treatment groups and the most commonly reported TEAEs in both treatment groups were diarrhea (5.0%) and headache (3.8%). Serious TEAEs were infrequent (1.3% for tebipenem HBr vs. 1.7% for ertapenem) and no deaths were reported in the trial. Three Clostridioides difficile associated TEAEs were observed in the ertapenem group, while none were observed in the tebipenem HBr group.  

Based on our pre-IND, pre-Phase 3 meeting with the FDA, we believe that positive results from a single pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr in cUTI would support the approval of tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTI. The primary analysis and assessment of non-inferiority was evaluated using a pre-specified -12.5% non-inferiority (NI) margin.  This NI margin was a modification of the original NI margin of -10% that was discussed with the FDA because of concern that the COVID-19 pandemic could have an adverse effect on the trial. As a result, the NI margin was modified prior to database lock from the original NI margin. Data from the ADAPT-PO Phase 3 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr, together with requisite safety data, drug-drug interaction studies and other studies, will form the basis for the NDA for tebipenem HBr to treat cUTI, including acute pyelonephritis, which we plan to submit to the FDA in the second half of 2021. The ADAPT-PO clinical trial may also support marketing applications in other global regions.

QIDP Designation

The FDA has designated tebipenem HBr as a QIDP for the treatment of cUTI, CABP and DFI under the GAIN Act. Among other benefits of a QIDP designation, the first marketing application for the QIDP-designated drug qualifies for priority review by the FDA. The QIDP designation for tebipenem HBr, however, does not guarantee a faster development process or ensure FDA approval. Further, if tebipenem HBr is approved for the treatment of cUTI, CABP or DFI, the FDA’s QIDP designation previously granted to tebipenem HBr for those indications will entitle the drug product to receive a one-time five-year extension to any non-patent exclusivity period awarded to tebipenem HBr in the United States, such as a five-year New Chemical Entity exclusivity granted under the Hatch-Waxman Act, among other possible periods of regulatory exclusivity that would qualify for a GAIN exclusivity extension.

9

Japanese Data Supporting Safety of Tebipenem

Tebipenem pivoxil is a prodrug that is metabolized to tebipenem, its therapeutically active form. We view the clinical safety profile of tebipenem pivoxil established by Meiji as relevant and supportive of tebipenem HBr because both metabolize to the active metabolite, tebipenem, in plasma. Our formulation development efforts are designed to improve target concentration while maintaining the exposure per dose.

Tebipenem pivoxil is an orally administered carbapenem, which is a sub-group of the beta-lactam class of antibiotics. The safety of tebipenem pivoxil was evaluated in approximately 1,200 subjects supporting the application for approval in Japan. In this safety data set, there are 741 adult subjects across 17 trials and 440 pediatric subjects across six trials. These 23 trials in total included one double-blind, comparator-controlled trial in children, five open-label trials in children, five trials enrolling adult patients (including two open-label cUTI trials), and 12 Phase 1 clinical pharmacology trials. Among the pharmacology trials, tebipenem pivoxil was studied for an effect on QT interval, and for the known effect of the pivoxil prodrug on plasma carnitine concentrations.

In these studies, tebipenem pivoxil was generally well tolerated, with an adverse event, or AE, profile comparable to common, approved oral beta lactam antibiotics and IV-administered carbapenems. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal (e.g., diarrhea, loose stools) in both children and adults, and in the Phase 3 clinical trial of otitis media, the incidence was similar to that reported for the comparator, cefditoren pivoxil, an oral cephalosporin antibiotic. No effect of the administration of tebipenem pivoxil on the prolongation of the QT interval was observed, and the effect on plasma carnitine concentrations was reversed post treatment and not associated with AEs. A side effect seen with beta-lactam antibiotics is seizures; however, there have been no reports of inducement of seizures due to the administration of tebipenem pivoxil in clinical trials.

Meiji has reported post-marketing outcomes data reporting the safety and efficacy of Orapenem Fine Granules 10% for Pediatric Use (tebipenem pivoxil) in pediatric patients with pneumonia, otitis media, or sinusitis. A total of 3,547 cases were enrolled into the observational study, and the analysis was conducted using 3,540 cases for which it was possible to recover the questionnaires.

A total of 348 instances of adverse drug reactions were observed in 334 cases amongst the 3,337 cases (including 6 adult cases) used in the safety analyses, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions was 10.01% (334 cases/3,337 cases). The adverse drug reaction that occurred most frequently was “diarrhea” (9.5%, 318 instances/3,337 cases). One serious drug reaction was observed of “multi-organ failure”. These data are consistent with the safety profile of tebipenem as established in the pediatric clinical trials and reflected in the Orapenem product labeling in Japan.

A clinical trial evaluating the effect of tebipenem pivoxil dosing over one week on intestinal flora was also performed. Total aerobic and anaerobic bacterial counts were evaluated. Total bacterial count was reduced by day 7 of the study in both the 100 and 200 mg TID groups. However, no additional change in bacterial count was observed on subsequent examination days. Neither fecal C. difficile nor its toxin was detected in any of the subjects during or following completion of the 7-day dosing period.

Funded Label Expansion Opportunity

In addition to cUTI, we believe that tebipenem HBr has the potential to treat other serious and life-threatening infections, including CABP. Our Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, award provides funding for Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials supporting a potential CABP indication for tebipenem HBr.

SPR720: Novel Oral Antibiotic Designed for Treatment of Non-tuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary (NTM-PD) Disease

A second area of our focus is rare infectious diseases, specifically non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease, a rare orphan disease. We are developing SPR720, which represents a novel class of antibacterial agents that target enzymes essential for bacterial DNA replication, for the treatment of NTM disease. NTM causes chronic and serious lung disease with debilitating symptoms that leads to a decline in lung function. It can have a significant physical and emotional impact on patients. SPR720 is designed to be the first novel, oral candidate to treat NTM pulmonary disease. SPR720 represents a novel class of antibacterial agents that target enzymes essential for bacterial DNA replication.

SPR720 has several key attributes including:

10

SPR720 has shown potent activity against most common NTM infection species, such as M. avium, M. abscessus and M. kansasii. As shown in the exhibit below, SPR720 showed Pulmonary Activity versus M. avium ATCC 700898 in a Murine Chronic Infection Model. In this model SPR720 was effective as a monotherapy and in combination with SOC agents.

Non-tuberculous mycobacteria are typically found in water and soil. NTM infections cause a rare infection of the lung that is acquired through inhalation of this microbe. There are approximately 150 types of mycobacteria, with Mycobacterium avium complex, or MAC, the most common cause of NTM infections, comprising approximately 80% of all NTM infections.

NTM disease occurs in many different types of patients. NTM disease often occurs in people with compromised immune systems, such as those with HIV, or those with respiratory conditions such as cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma or bronchiectasis. According to Strollo et al. and Adjemian et al., the diagnosed patient population is approximately 86,000 in the United States. The annual prevalence of NTM disease is increasing at an estimated rate of 8% per year. While people of any age can be infected by NTM, it mostly affects middle-aged to elderly adults, and is increasing among patients over 65 years old, a population that is growing in numbers. While relatively rare compared to other infectious diseases, the prevalence of NTM disease has more than doubled since 1997 and unfortunately, infections caused by NTM are often undiagnosed, masquerading as another respiratory condition such as COPD or asthma. By comparison, the prevalence of TB in North America has declined.

There are currently no oral FDA-approved therapeutics specifically approved for use to treat NTM pulmonary disease. Given the unmet medical need, there are regulatory incentives available to encourage drug development to address NTM disease. These include orphan drug designation, potential for breakthrough therapy status and QIDP designation. Treatment of NTM disease requires prolonged therapy (continuing for approximately 12 to 24 months) with a combination regimen and is frequently complicated by tolerability and/or toxicity issues. Treatment failure is common and is often due to poor compliance or inability to tolerate the regimen. Many patients experience progressive lung disease and mortality is high. We believe there is a need for new, potent, orally available therapies for NTM disease. While there are competitive compounds in development for NTM disease, these therapies are not effective in all patients and are not orally available.

We believe that our intellectual property portfolio for SPR720, which includes multiple issued patents and patent applications pending, will provide SPR720 protection globally, including in the United States and Europe, through 2033.

11

Our SPR720 Development Plan

Our strategy is to develop SPR720 to become the first oral treatment FDA-indicated for NTM disease, and ultimately provide a treatment option to NTM patients to reduce their disease burden and improve their quality of life.

In March 2020, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for SPR720, a designation that is given to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States. An orphan drug designation can provide specific benefits including up to seven years of market exclusivity in the United States upon regulatory approval.  In February 2019, we received QIDP designation for SPR720 for the treatment of lung infections caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria and for the treatment of lung infections caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. QIDP designation entitles a future marketing application for SPR720 for this indication to priority review by the FDA. Neither the QIDP nor orphan drug designation, however, guarantee a faster development process or ensure FDA approval. In September 2020, SPR720 was awarded Fast Track Designation by the FDA for treatment of adult patients with NTM pulmonary disease.

In December 2020, we initiated a Phase 2a dose-ranging clinical trial of SPR720 in patients with nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease following the acceptance of our investigational new drug, or IND, application for SPR720 in August 2020. The Phase 2a clinical trial is designed as a multi-center, partially blinded, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept clinical trial of SPR720 that is expected to enroll approximately 90 treatment-inexperienced patients with NTM-PD due to MAC.  Patients are randomized to receive either 500 mg or 1,000 mg of oral SPR720 once daily, placebo, or standard- of-care, or SOC, consisting of a macrolide and ethambutol, plus the option of adding a rifamycin.  The objectives of the trial are to evaluate the plasma pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and microbiological response of SPR720 compared with placebo and SOC over 28 days of treatment, with the inclusion of the SOC arm to assess and ensure assay sensitivity for the trial design.

The doses selected for the Phase 2a trial of SPR720 are supported by pharmacokinetic analyses as well as data from the Phase 1 clinical trial of SPR720.  The Phase 1 trial reported in December 2019 was designed as a double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending dose, multi-cohort study in healthy subjects. Data from this Phase 1 trial was presented at ID Week 2020 and indicated that SPR720 is generally well-tolerated, and predicted therapeutic exposures could be attained with a 500 – 1,000 mg once daily oral dose.

The Phase 1 clinical trial of SPR720 evaluated the safety, tolerability and PK of orally administered SPR720 at single doses ranging from 100 mg to 2000 mg and repeat total daily doses ranging from 500 mg to 1500 mg for up to 7 to 14 days. Across seven single ascending dose, or SAD, and five multiple ascending dose, or MAD, cohorts, a total of 96 healthy volunteers (including a cohort of healthy elderly (age ≥ 65 years) volunteers) were randomized to receive SPR720 or placebo. There were no serious adverse events reported and all participants completed the trial. An analysis of preliminary blinded data indicates that SPR720 was generally well-tolerated at doses up to 1000 mg over the maximum studied duration of 14 days. Preliminary analyses of PK data across the cohorts show no significant impact of either advanced age or administration with food on PK variables. At doses of 500 mg or higher, the mean plasma drug exposures of SPR719, the active metabolite of SPR720, are consistent with those suggested by in vivo models of SPR720 to be necessary for clinical efficacy against target NTM pathogens.

Update on Phase 2a Clinical Trial

On February 5, 2021, we announced that the FDA informed us that a clinical hold had been placed on our Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720, following our notification to the FDA of our decision to pause dosing in our ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720 as a precautionary measure related to events in our ongoing animal toxicology study of SPR720. The decision to implement the pause was made based on a recommendation from the Company’s Safety Review Board, or SRB, following review of data from an ongoing toxicology study of SPR720 in adult non-human primates in which mortalities with inconclusive causality to treatment were observed.

The animal study is being conducted to assess the potential toxicity of SPR720. A concurrent study of SPR720 in rats is proceeding uneventfully. These studies are meant to support longer-term treatment with SPR720 beyond the 28 days currently supported by IND-enabling toxicology studies. No serious adverse events have been observed in any human study participants.

Subsequent to receiving verbal notification from the FDA of the clinical hold, we received a formal clinical hold letter in which the FDA has requested additional information from the non-human primate trial, including a study report. We have decided to discontinue the Phase 2a clinical trial at this time to best facilitate future potential adjustments to the protocol based on FDA feedback and to avoid incurring costs associated with the trial while on clinical hold. We are continuing to work with the FDA to evaluate the findings and determine the further development pathway for the SPR720 clinical program.

12

IV Potentiator Product Candidate SPR206: Our IV-administered product candidate being developed as an innovative option to treat multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacterial infections in the Hospital Setting.

SPR206 is an IV-administered product candidate being developed as an innovative option to treat MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections in the Hospital Setting. Gram-negative bacteria represent a subset of bacterial organisms distinguished by the presence of an outer cell membrane. SPR206 is designed to treat MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections through interactions with the bacteria’s outer cell membrane as a monotherapy.

SPR206 is a direct acting IV-administered agent that has demonstrated single-agent antibacterial activity in preclinical studies against Gram-negative bacteria, including organisms identified by the CDC and the WHO as urgent and serious threats to human health, including Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

In January 2020 we reported results from a Phase 1 clinical trial designed as a double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending dose, multi-cohort study in healthy subjects. In the Phase 1 clinical trial SPR206 was well-tolerated at doses that are likely to be within a therapeutic range for target MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections and has a safety profile that we believe supports the further development of SPR206. The Phase 1 clinical trial of SPR206 was designed as a double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending dose, multi-cohort study in healthy subjects. In this SAD and MAD Phase 1 clinical trial, a total of 96 healthy volunteers were randomized to receive SPR206 or placebo. All reported adverse events were mild to moderate and there were no reported severe or serious adverse events. No evidence of nephrotoxicity was observed and there were no subjects with clinically significant changes in laboratory tests during the study. SPR206 was well-tolerated at doses up to 100 mg administered three-times a day, a total of 300 mg daily, for 14 consecutive days. Pharmacokinetic data across the cohorts indicate dose linearity and dose proportionality as well as mean plasma drug exposures of SPR206 that are concordant with preclinical models predictive for clinical efficacy against target Gram-negative pathogens.

We have conducted a preclinical toxicology study of SPR206 in accordance with good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements as well as conducted nonclinical studies in which SPR206 demonstrated activity as a single agent against MDR and extensively drug resistant, or XDR, bacterial strains, including isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, in both in vitro and in vivo models of infection. We expect to initiate a Phase 1 bronchoalveolar lavage, or BAL, clinical trial to assess the penetration of SPR206 into the pulmonary compartment in the first half of 2021 and to initiate a renal impairment study of SPR206 in 2021.

SPR206 has been granted QIDP designation by the FDA for the treatment of cUTI and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). We have multiple patent applications pending for SPR206 that we believe will provide SPR206 protection globally, including in the United States and Europe, through 2039.

Following an evaluation of the IV Potentiator product candidates, we discontinued development of SPR741, effective January 1, 2020. We believe that the collective data from the recent Phase 1 and preclinical studies of SPR206 suggest a potency and safety profile that may be superior to SPR741. Further, we believe SPR206 may have a potentially faster path to pivotal clinical trials when compared with SPR741 because SPR206 is being developed as a single agent. As a result of this decision, we terminated our license agreement with Northern Antibiotics Oy (Ltd.) relating to SPR741. Effective January 1, 2020, the intellectual property rights associated with SPR741 reverted to Northern Antibiotics and we no longer have any rights with respect thereto and we no longer have any obligations for the cost of maintaining such intellectual property.

SPR206 Advantages

We believe that with the following key attributes, SPR206, an IV Potentiator, has the potential to become a safe and effective treatment for serious Gram-negative infections:

13

SPR206—Development Plan

Advancing SPR206 into Two Phase 1 Clinical Trials in 2021

We plan to advance SPR206 into a Phase 1 BAL clinical trial to assess the penetration of SPR206 into the pulmonary compartment in the first half of 2021 and to initiate a renal impairment study of SPR206 in 2021.

Its advancement is supported by the Phase 1 SAD and MAD that we reported data for in January 2020. The Phase 1 trial was designed as a double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending dose, multi-cohort study in healthy subjects. In the Phase 1 clinical trial, SPR206 was well-tolerated at doses that are likely to be within a therapeutic range for target MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections and had a safety profile that we believe supports the further development of SPR206. The Phase 1 clinical trial of SPR206 was designed as a double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending dose, multi-cohort study in healthy subjects. In this SAD and MAD Phase 1 clinical trial, a total of 96 healthy volunteers were randomized to receive SPR206 or placebo. All reported adverse events were mild to moderate and there were no reported severe or serious adverse events. No evidence of nephrotoxicity was observed and there were no subjects with clinically significant changes in laboratory tests during the study. SPR206 was well-tolerated at doses up to 100 mg administered three-times a day, a total of 300 mg daily, for 14 consecutive days. Pharmacokinetic data across the cohorts indicate dose linearity and dose proportionality as well as mean plasma drug exposures of SPR206 that are concordant with preclinical models predictive for clinical efficacy against target Gram-negative pathogens.

In Vitro Activity of SPR206 against MDR Gram-Negative Bacteria

Results from multiple susceptibility studies against contemporary clinical isolates suggest that SPR206 possesses potent activity against MDR Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.

14

Our Strategy

Our goal is to identify, develop and commercialize novel treatments for MDR bacterial infections, focusing on areas of high unmet medical need for safe and effective antibiotic treatments. Key elements of our strategy are as follows:

15

Collaboration, License and Service Agreements

In addition to our own patents and patent applications, we have acquired or licensed patents, patent applications and know-how from various third parties to access intellectual property covering product candidates that we are developing. We have certain obligations under these acquisitions or licensing agreements, including diligence obligations and payments, which are contingent upon achieving various development, regulatory and commercial milestones. Also, pursuant to the terms of some of these license agreements, when and if commercial sales of a product commence, we may be obligated to pay royalties to such third parties on net sales of the respective products. Some of our license agreements include sublicenses of rights owned by third-party head licensors. In addition, we have entered into a license agreement (described below) pursuant to which we have granted certain development, manufacturing and commercialization rights with respect to our Potentiator product candidates.

Meiji Agreements

To support our development of tebipenem HBr, in June 2017 we entered into an exclusive License Agreement with Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., or the Meiji License. Pursuant to the Meiji License, we obtained know-how, data and regulatory documents that will support the development of tebipenem HBr.

We retain exclusive rights to commercialize tebipenem HBr throughout the world, except in Japan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam, where Meiji will have exclusive rights to commercialize tebipenem HBr. With Meiji, we have established a joint development committee for the management of the development of tebipenem HBr, including any joint, cross-territory studies that may be undertaken by the parties, if any. In addition, the parties will establish a joint commercialization committee to coordinate information sharing relative to commercialization of the new formulation.

Meiji and we have granted each other exclusive cross licenses to our respective tebipenem intellectual property, including know-how and regulatory documentation. The license granted to us by Meiji includes certain know-how that Meiji received from Global Pharma, as described below. As such, our rights to the Global Pharma know-how component are non-exclusive.

Under the Meiji License, we have paid Meiji a one-time nonrefundable upfront fee of $0.6 million and are obligated to pay Meiji future clinical and regulatory milestone payments up to an aggregate of $2.0 million and royalties of a low single-digit percentage based on net sales of tebipenem HBr. In October 2017, we paid a $1.0 million milestone payment to Meiji upon the enrollment of the first patient in our Phase 1 clinical trial of tebipenem HBr. Additionally, we are obligated to pay Meiji a percentage of certain amounts received from any sublicensees, up to an aggregate of $7.5 million.

Some of the know-how that we received under the Meiji License to support tebipenem HBr development was originally obtained by Meiji through a license from Global Pharma, which we refer to as the head license. Prior to entering into the Meiji License with us, Meiji received written approval from Global Pharma permitting Meiji to enter into the Meiji License with us. Specifically, in a letter agreement between Global Pharma and Meiji entered into in January 2017, Global Pharma consented to Meiji assisting us with the transfer or license of the Global Pharma know-how and Meiji know-how on a non-exclusive basis outside of those Asian countries identified above, as well as certain related matters. This letter agreement does not contemplate us having any right to sublicense the Global Pharma know-how. Global Pharma retains rights to its know-how outside of those Asian countries identified above.

The Meiji License continues in effect until the expiration of all payment obligations thereunder (including royalty payments and licensee revenue) on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, unless earlier terminated by the parties. Pursuant to the terms of the Meiji License, in addition to each party’s right to terminate the agreement upon the other party’s material breach (if not cured within a specified period after receipt of notice) or insolvency, we also have unilateral termination rights (i) in the event that we abandon the development and commercialization of tebipenem HBr for efficacy, safety, legal or business factors, and (ii) under certain circumstances arising out of the head license with Global Pharma.

16

IV Potentiator Product Agreements

Northern License Agreement

In January 2020, we terminated our license agreement with Northern Antibiotics Oy (Ltd.) relating to SPR741. Effective January 1, 2020, the intellectual property rights associated with SPR741 have entirely reverted to Northern Antibiotics and we no longer have any rights with respect thereto and we no longer have any obligations for the cost of maintaining such intellectual property.

Cantab Agreements

In June 2016, we entered into a stock purchase agreement, or the Cantab Agreement, with Pro Bono Bio PLC, a corporation organized under the laws of England, and its affiliates, including PBB Distributions Limited, or PBB, Cantab Anti-Infectives Ltd., or CAI and New Pharma License Holdings Limited, or NPLH, in order to acquire NPLH and its intellectual property rights and assets relating to our Potentiator products, and our next-generation potentiating agents in particular. The intellectual property portfolio we acquired includes patents which cover SPR206 as well as other novel potentiating agents, polymyxin derivatives and other LPS or outer-membrane bacterial disrupting agents. In exchange for the acquisition of NPLH, we paid PBB upfront consideration in the amount of $0.3 million and also agreed to make milestone payments of up to $5.8 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones and a payment of £5.0 million ($6.8 million as of December 31, 2020) upon the achievement of a specified commercial milestone. We also agreed to pay royalties of a low single-digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement. In addition, Spero Cantab issued an equity interest in Spero Cantab and entered into a subscription agreement and shareholders agreement with PBB. In July 2017, we repurchased PBB’s minority equity interest in Spero Cantab in exchange for a one-time nonrefundable upfront fee of approximately $0.2 million and we also amended the Cantab Agreement to increase the contingent milestone payments to PBB by an aggregate of $0.1 million. The Cantab Agreement continues indefinitely, with royalty payment obligations thereunder continuing on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country or the expiration in such country of the last to expire valid claim of any of the applicable patents.

In addition, we hold a NIAID contract that partially funded the next-generation potentiating agent development program. That contract was novated from CAI to us in December 2017. Under the contract we were obligated to pay PBB a percentage of funds received from NIAID up to a maximum of $1.3 million, which was fulfilled as of December 31, 2020.

Everest Medicines License Agreement

On January 4, 2019, we, through NPLH, entered into a license agreement, or the Original Everest License Agreement, with Everest, which Original Everest License Agreement also included an option granted by our wholly owned subsidiary, Spero Potentiator, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or Potentiator. Under the terms of the Original Everest License Agreement, we granted Everest an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR206 or products that contain SPR206, or Licensed Products, in Greater China (which includes Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau), South Korea and certain Southeast Asian countries, collectively referred to as the Territory. We retained development, manufacturing and commercialization rights with respect to SPR206 and Licensed Products in the rest of the world and also retained the right to develop or manufacture SPR206 and Licensed Products in the Territory for use outside the Territory. In addition to the license grant to SPR206, we granted Everest a 12-month exclusive option to negotiate with us for an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR741 in the Territory. For the reasons discussed above, following an evaluation of the Potentiator product candidates, we discontinued the development of SPR741, effective January 1, 2020, and decided to move forward with SPR206 as our lead Potentiator product candidate. In addition, on October 29, 2019, Everest notified us that it did not intend to exercise its option with respect to SPR741 under the Original Everest License Agreement. Accordingly, effective January 1, 2020, we no longer have any intellectual property rights with respect to SPR741 and we no longer have any obligations for the cost of maintaining such intellectual property.

Under the terms of the Original Everest License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $3.0 million. We also received a milestone payment of $2.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2020 upon completion and delivery of the results of a clinical study.

17

In January 2021, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement, or the Amended Everest License Agreement, with Everest and Potentiator, which amended and restated in its entirety the Original Everest License Agreement. The Amended Everest License Agreement modified the dates and values of certain milestone events related to development and commercialization of SPR206. Everest will now be making more significant investments in the development of SPR206 beyond what was contemplated at the time of the Original Everest License Agreement. The Original Everest License Agreement provided that we could receive up to $59.5 million upon achievement of certain milestones. The Amended Everest License Agreement provides that we may receive up to $38.0 million upon achievement of certain milestones, of which $2.0 million has been received to date. In addition, under the Amended Everest License Agreement, the Company assigned patents in the Territory to Everest, rather than licensing such patents to Everest, and the option related to SPR741 and related provisions have been removed. We are also entitled to receive high single-digit to low double-digit royalties on net sales, if any, of Licensed Products in the Territory following regulatory approval of SPR206. Everest has the right to sublicense to affiliates and third parties in the Territory.

Everest is responsible for all costs related to developing, obtaining regulatory approval of and commercializing SPR206 and Licensed Products in the Territory, and is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture and commercialize Licensed Products, including to achieve certain specified diligence milestones within agreed-upon periods. A joint development committee will be established between us and Everest to coordinate and review the development, manufacturing and commercialization plans with respect to Licensed Products in the Territory.

Unless earlier terminated due to certain material breaches of the contract, or otherwise, the Amended Everest License Agreement will expire on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction and Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product basis until the latest to occur of expiration of the last valid claim under a licensed patent in such jurisdiction, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity in such jurisdiction or ten years after the first commercial sale of such Licensed Product in such jurisdiction. The Amended Everest License Agreement may be terminated in its entirety by Everest upon 90 or 180 days’ prior written notice, depending on the stage of development of the initial Licensed Product.

Other License, Collaboration and Service Agreements

Gates MRI Collaboration

In June 2019, we entered into a collaboration with Gates MRI, a nonprofit research institution wholly owned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to develop SPR720 for the treatment of lung infections caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, or Mtb. In furtherance of the Gates MRI’s charitable purposes, we also granted the Gates MRI a no cost, exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR720 for the treatment of TB in low- and middle- income countries. Gates MRI will conduct and fund preclinical and clinical studies for the development of SPR720 against TB as well as certain collaborative research activities performed by us.

Vertex Assignment and License Agreement

In May 2016, we entered into an agreement with Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, or Vertex, pursuant to which Vertex assigned to us rights to patents relating to SPR720 and SPR719 (an active metabolite). The acquired patent portfolio includes protection for composition of matter, method of use, and specific key intermediates used in the manufacture of SPR719 and SPR720. We also obtained certain know-how and a license to research, develop, manufacture and sell products for a proprietary compound, as well as a transfer of materials as part of the transaction. In return, we granted Vertex an exclusive license to the assigned patents and know-how for use outside of the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of bacterial infections. In exchange for the assigned patents, we paid Vertex an upfront, one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable fee of $0.5 million, which was recognized as research and development expense, and we also agreed to pay Vertex future clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones up to $81.3 million in the aggregate and a royalty on the net sales of licensed products ranging from mid-single digits to low double digits. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we paid and recorded $0.9 million in expense related to the achievement of regulatory milestones for SPR720. The agreement continues in effect until the expiration of all payment obligations thereunder, with royalty payment obligations continuing on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country or the date of expiration in such country of the last to expire applicable patent. Further, Vertex has the right to terminate the agreement if provided with notification from us of our intent to cease all development or if no material development or commercialization efforts occur for a period of 12 consecutive months.

18

Savior Service Agreement

In November 2018, we entered into a service agreement with Savior Lifetec Corporation, or Savior, to perform technology transfer, process development, analytical method development and testing and formulation development for tebipenem HBr. Per the terms of the agreement, we paid Savior a non-refundable supervision fee of approximately $2.0 million to manage the buildout of a commercial manufacturing facility. The supervision fee is classified as a prepaid asset on our balance sheet and is being amortized over a service period of approximately 34 months. We have paid Savior an additional $5.1 million for facility build out costs, which is classified as a long-term asset on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2020.

Government Awards

Through December 31, 2020, we have committed funding support of up to an aggregate of $49.7 million in non-dilutive funding from BARDA, NIAID, the DoD and concluded awards from CARB-X, SBIR and the DoD, with the potential to receive a total of up to $63.0 million (inclusive of amounts we have already received) if certain options are exercised. The awards are subject to termination for convenience at any time by the granting government agency, and the granting government agency is not obligated to provide funding to us beyond the base period amounts from Congressionally approved annual appropriations. These awards are structured in the following manner:

19

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success will significantly depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology and inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Spero-Owned Intellectual Property Relating to Tebipenem HBr and Other Compounds Under Development

We have patent applications directed to the composition of matter, formulation and/or use of tebipenem HBr, SPR206 and SPR720 pending in the United States, Europe, Japan and other countries.

Tebipenem HBr Oral Carbapenem (Tebipenem Pivoxil Hydrobromide)

Our tebipenem HBr program contains two pending United States provisional patent applications, one issued and two pending United States patent applications, and four issued and 37 pending foreign patent applications covering novel preparations of tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide as of December 31, 2020, all wholly owned by us. The provisional patent application must be converted to PCT applications within one year of their May 2020 and November 2020 filing dates. The issued foreign patents are issued in Australia (2), Brazil, and South Africa. Foreign patent applications are pending in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the Eurasian Patent Office, the European Patent Office, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and South Africa. United States and foreign patents covering our tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide preparations will have statutory expiration dates of December 2037, February 2038, May 2040, and November 2040. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

In January 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, issued U.S. Patent No, 10,889,587, which is directed to the crystalline formulation of tebipenem HBr, Spero’s oral carbapenem in development for the treatment of cUTI and AP. This patent covers a crystalline form of tebipenem pivoxil HBr, pharmaceutical compositions of tebipenem pivoxil HBr and methods of use. The patent expires in February 2038.

Next-Generation Potentiator Product (SPR206)

The intellectual property portfolio for our next-generation polymyxin program contains patent applications and issued patents directed to composition of matter for polymyxin-like compounds with different structural features, pharmaceutical compositions comprising the same, and methods of use for these novel compounds and compositions. As of December 31, 2020, we owned one United States patent and three pending United States patent applications, ten foreign patents, and 46 pending foreign patent applications in a number of jurisdictions including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the Eurasian Patent Office, the European Patent Office, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia,  Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Venezuela and Vietnam. Issued United States or foreign patents and any patents issuing from pending United States or foreign applications covering our next-generation polymyxin program will have a statutory expiration date of May 2034, March 2035, November 2035, or June 2039. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

In 2019 Spero entered into an agreement with Everest, by which Everest would develop, manufacture, and commercialize SPR206 in China, South Korea, and certain Southeast Asian countries. Spero’s agreement with Everest has since been amended to include an obligation by Spero to assign its SPR206 patent rights to Everest in these countries.

NTM Disease Program (SPR720)

Our intellectual property portfolio for our DNA Gyrase Inhibitor program includes issued patents and pending patent applications directed to composition of matter for SPR720, and its close analogs and prodrugs, novel solid forms of SPR720 and its prodrugs, methods of manufacture, and methods of treatment using SPR720 alone and in combination with other antibiotic compounds. All patents and patent applications in the portfolio are wholly owned by us. As of December 31, 2020, we owned 11 issued United States patents, 91 issued foreign patents, and seven pending foreign patent applications. The issued and foreign patents are in a number of jurisdictions including the European Union and its member states, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and Taiwan. Issued United States and foreign patents, and patents issuing from pending United States and foreign applications, will have statutory expiration dates of January 2032, June 2032 and July 2033. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

20

Patent Term and Patent Term Extensions

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug are extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

Trade Secrets

We rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our unpatented technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets and proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached. We may not have adequate remedies for any breach and could lose our trade secrets through such a breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting trade secrets, know-how and inventions.

Competition

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and generic drug companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater financial, technical, and human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA approval of drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our most advanced product candidate, tebipenem HBr, if approved, will be efficacy, coverage of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of oral dosing, price, availability of reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payers and susceptibility to drug resistance.

We are developing tebipenem HBr as an oral antibiotic for use as a monotherapy for the treatment of resistant and MDR infections. If approved, tebipenem HBr would compete with several antibiotics currently in clinical development for urinary tract infection, including sulopenem from Iterum Therapeutics Limited, ARX-1796 from Pfizer, Gepotidacin from GSK and Pivmecillinam from Utilility Therapeutics. We also expect that tebipenem HBr, if approved, would compete with future and current generic versions of marketed antibiotics. If approved, we believe that tebipenem HBr would compete effectively against these compounds on the basis of tebipenem HBr’s potential:

We are also developing SPR206 as an innovative IV-administered agent for Gram-negative infections in the hospital. If approved, SPR206 would compete with several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of Gram-negative infections, including ceftazidime-avibactam (Avycaz) from Allergan plc and Pfizer Inc., ceftolozane-tazobactam (Zerbaxa) from Merck & Co., plazomicin (Zemdri) from Cipla Therapeutics, Inc., eravacycline (Xerava) from Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and meropenem-vaborbactam (Vabomere) from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. There are also a number of IV-administered product candidates in late-stage clinical development that are intended to treat resistant Gram-negative infections, including cefiderocol from Shionogi & Co. Ltd., and imipenem-relebactam from Merck & Co. Each of these products and product candidates employs a mechanism of action that differs from the mechanism of action employed by SPR206.

21

We are developing SPR720 to be the first approved oral treatment for NTM disease. There are currently no oral agents approved to treat NTM disease. Only one drug is approved to treat NTM infection that would potentially compete with SPR720 called Arikayce from Insmed, an inhaled version of a commonly used drug in the hospital setting called amikacin. It should be noted that combination therapy is recommended for treating this condition.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, clinical trials, testing, manufacture, including any manufacturing changes, authorization, pharmacovigilance, adverse event reporting, recalls, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products and product candidates such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending NDAs, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil and/or criminal penalties.

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

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Preclinical tests intended for submission to the FDA to support the safety of a product candidate must be conducted in compliance with GLP regulations and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. A drug sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND.

22

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial along with the requirement to ensure that the data and results reported from the clinical trials are credible and accurate. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the criteria for determining subject eligibility, the dosing plan, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, the procedure for timely reporting of adverse events, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution.

Information about certain clinical trials and clinical trial results must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on its www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. During Phase 1 clinical trials, sufficient information about the investigational drug’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

Phase 2: The drug is administered to a larger, but still limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted indications and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Phase 2 clinical trials are typically well-controlled and closely monitored.

Phase 3: The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Phase 3 clinical trials usually involve a larger number of participants than a Phase 2 clinical trial.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Results from one trial may not be predictive of results from subsequent trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the nonclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for prescription drug products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

Under the performance goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. This review typically takes 12 months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA (eight months for priority applications) because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision. Furthermore, the FDA is not required to complete its review within the established ten-month timeframe (or six months for priority applications) and may extend the review process by issuing requests for additional information or clarification.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facilities in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meet standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

23

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, as amended and reauthorized, certain NDAs or supplements to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

During the review and approval process, the FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, plan if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the drug. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug or a drug that presents difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application 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 will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND regulations and GCP requirements and to assure the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

The FDA generally accepts data from foreign clinical trials in support of an NDA if the trials were conducted under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the FDA nevertheless may accept the data in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCPs and the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection, if deemed necessary. Although the FDA generally requests that marketing applications be supported by some data from domestic clinical trials, the FDA may accept foreign data as the sole basis for marketing approval if (1) the foreign data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice, (2) the studies were performed by clinical investigators with recognized competence, and (3) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection or, if the FDA considers the inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

The testing and approval process for a new drug product requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter, or CRL, describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the agency. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the CRL may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter to the applicant. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included.  Even with submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS plan, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

24

Special FDA Expedited Review

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, QIDP designation, and priority review designation. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need, or if the drug qualifies as a QIDP under the GAIN Act. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides additional opportunities for interaction with the FDA’s review team and may allow for rolling review of NDA components before the completed application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process. Tebipenem HBr has been granted fast track designation by the FDA for the treatment of cUTI and AP, and in September 2020, SPR720 received fast track designation for treatment of adult patients with NTM pulmonary disease.

In addition, with the enactment of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, in 2012, Congress created a new regulatory program for therapeutic candidates designated by FDA as “breakthrough therapies” upon a request made by the IND sponsors. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA must take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, such as holding timely meetings with and providing advice to the product sponsor, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

FDASIA also included the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act, or the GAIN Act, which directed the FDA to implement the qualified infectious disease product, or QIDP, designation program. The GAIN Act created incentives for the development of antibacterial and antifungal drug products for the treatment of serious or life-threatening infections. A therapeutic candidate designated as a QIDP is eligible for fast track designation, and the first marketing application submitted for a specific drug product and indication for which QIDP designation was granted will be granted priority review. A subsequent application from the same sponsor for the same product and indication will receive priority review designation only if it otherwise meets the criteria for priority review. As discussed further below under “Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity,” the GAIN Act also provides the possibility of a five-year exclusivity extension that is added to any other marketing exclusivity for which a QIDP-designated drug qualifies upon FDA approval.  

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug or biologic that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months for an NDA for a new molecular entity from the date of filing.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

In addition, a product studied for its safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, meaning that it may be approved on (i) the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or (ii) on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the drug may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

25

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a therapeutic candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the drug. All promotional materials for drug products being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Limited Population Antibacterial Drug Pathway

On December 13, 2016, former President Obama signed into law the Cures Act, which is intended to accelerate medical product development. Section 3042 of the Cures Act established the limited population pathway for certain antibacterial or antifungal drugs intended to treat targeted groups of patients suffering from serious or life-threatening infections where unmet need exists. Approvals of these limited population drugs are expected to rely on data from smaller clinical trials than would ordinarily be required by the FDA. For drugs approved through this pathway, the statement “Limited Population” will appear prominently next to the drug’s name in labeling, which is intended to provide notice to healthcare providers that the drug is indicated for use in a limited and specific population of patients. To date, the FDA has approved two products under this pathway, and in August 2020 it published a final guidance for industry entitled “Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs” that describes the criteria, processes, and other general considerations for demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of limited population antibacterial and antifungal drugs, or LPADs, and is intended to assist sponsors in their development of certain new products for approval under the LPAD pathway.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. Certain modifications to the product, including changes in indications or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials to support the submission to FDA. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of quality control and quality assurance.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products that are placed on the market. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved, and approved drugs may generally be promoted only for their approved indications and for use in patient populations described in the product’s approved labeling. Promotional claims must also be consistent with the product’s FDA-approved label, including claims related to safety and effectiveness. The government also closely scrutinizes the promotion of prescription drugs in specific contexts such as direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. After an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

26

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences of regulatory non-compliance include, among other things:

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Most recently, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or the DSCSA, was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10‑year period that is expected to culminate in November 2023.

Regulatory Exclusivity and Approval of Follow-on Products

Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA and also established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they cannot include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer must rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD.

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

27

In contrast, Section 505(b)(2) 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. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously-approved product is scientifically appropriate. Unlike the ANDA pathway used by developers of bioequivalent versions of innovator drugs, which does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway does not preclude the possibility that a follow-on applicant would need to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies; for example, it may be seeking approval to market a previously approved drug for new indications or for a new patient population that would require new clinical data to demonstrate safety or effectiveness.

As part of the NDA review and approval process, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent that has claims that cover the applicant’s product or method of therapeutic use. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential follow-on competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA.

When an ANDA applicant submits its application to the FDA, it is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. 

If the follow-on applicant does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, the FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application 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 follow-on 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 or 505(b)(2) NDA 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/505(b)(2) applicant.

An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivities listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product have expired. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA provided a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of data exclusivity if an NDA or NDA supplement includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient.

Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. For drug products that contain an “antibiotic” ingredient approved prior to 1997, the statute imposes certain limitations on the award of non-patent exclusivity. However, we do not believe these limitations would apply to tebipenem HBr or any of our other investigational antibiotics currently in preclinical and clinical development.

28

Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity

Under the GAIN Act, the FDA may designate a product as a QIDP. In order to qualify for designation as a QIDP, the drug product candidate must be an antibiotic or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (i) an antibiotic or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (ii) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms to be established and maintained by the FDA. We obtained a QIDP designation for the oral formulation of tebipenem HBr for cUTI in November 2016 and CABP and DFI in April 2017. We were granted QIDP designation by the FDA for SPR206 in October 2018 for the treatment of cUTI and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). In February 2019, we were granted QIDP designation for SPR720 capsule for oral use for the treatment of lung infections caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria and for the treatment of lung infections caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

In addition to the expedited review benefits for which a QIDP-designated drug candidate may be eligible, such a drug that is approved for the use for which the QIDP designation was granted will receive a five-year extension to any non-patent marketing exclusivity period for which the drug qualified upon approval, such as five-year NCE exclusivity, three-year new clinical data exclusivity, seven-year orphan exclusivity, or six-month pediatric exclusivity. This so-called GAIN exclusivity extension is not available to a QIDP-designated drug that has previously received the five-year extension period, such as when an applicant is seeking approval for a new indication or new strength.  

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

In March 2020, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for SPR720 for the treatment of NTM infection. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects either (i) fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or (ii) more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Legislative proposals are currently being considered that would revise or revoke the second option available for a drug candidate to receive an orphan designation, the so-called “cost recovery” pathway. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use will be disclosed publicly by the FDA; the posting will also indicate whether a drug is no longer designated as an orphan drug.

More than one product candidate may receive an orphan drug designation for the same indication, and the same product candidate can be designated for more than one qualified orphan indication. The benefits of orphan drug designation include research and development tax credits and exemption from FDA prescription drug user fees. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process if or when an NDA for the drug candidate is filed.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that for seven years, the FDA may not approve any other marketing applications for the same drug for the same indication, except under limited circumstances described further below. Orphan exclusivity does not block the approval of a different drug for the same rare disease or condition, nor does it block the approval of the same drug for different conditions. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan drug exclusivity, the FDA can still approve different drugs for use in treating the same indication or disease, which could create a more competitive market for our drug products, if approved for marketing in the future. Additionally, if a drug designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity.

Orphan exclusivity will not bar approval of another product with the same drug for the same condition under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same drug for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety or a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of persons with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Following amendments made to the statute as part the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, the FDA is required to publish a summary of the clinical superiority findings when a drug is eligible for orphan product exclusivity on the basis of a demonstration of clinical superiority.

In addition, the FDA finalized guidance in 2018 indicating that it does not expect to grant any additional orphan drug designation to products for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases. Nevertheless, FDA intends to still grant orphan drug designation to a drug that otherwise meets all other criteria for designation when it prevents, diagnoses or treats either (i) a rare disease that includes a rare pediatric subpopulation, (ii) a pediatric subpopulation that constitutes a valid orphan subset, or (iii) a rare disease that is in fact a different disease in the pediatric population as compared to the adult population.

29

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, certain therapeutic candidates may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA, referred to as a Written Request, relating to the use of the active moiety of the product candidate in children. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, the additional protection is granted if the pediatric clinical trial is deemed to have fairly responded to the FDA’s Written Request. Although the FDA may issue a Written Request for studies on either approved or unapproved indications, it may only do so where it determines that information relating to that use of a product candidate in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described trials. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, or EU, and Australia, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Before clinical trials may be conducted in any EU Member State, a sponsor must submit a clinical trial authorization application, or CTA, which must be approved in each country in which the sponsor intends to perform a clinical trial. The procedure for submitting a CTA was set forth in an existing EU Clinical Trial Directive. However, the way clinical trials are conducted in the EU underwent a major change when the Clinical Trial Regulation became effective, which initially had been scheduled to occur in 2019 but has been delayed. The Regulation harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU, via an EU portal and database. The European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, will set up and maintain the portal and database, in collaboration with the EU Member States and the European Commission.

In June 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom. voted in favor of leaving the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and the United Kingdom formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which EU pharmaceutical law remained applicable to the United Kingdom. This transition period ended on December 31, 2020. Since the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of medicinal products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom, as United Kingdom legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact the regulatory regime in the United Kingdom in the long-term. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now the transition period is over, which will be updated as the United Kingdom’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

The goal of Clinical Trial Regulation is to create an environment that is favorable to conducting clinical trials in the EU, with the highest standards of safety for participants and increased transparency of trial information. The Regulation will require consistent rules for conducting clinical trials throughout the EU and information on the authorization, conduct and results of each clinical trial carried out in the EU to be publicly available.

When the Regulation becomes applicable, it will replace the existing EU Clinical Trial Directive and national legislation that was put in place to implement the Directive. It will also apply to trials authorized under the previous legislation if they are still ongoing three years after the Regulation becomes effective. The authorization and oversight of clinical trials will remain the responsibility of EU Member States, with EMA managing the database and supervising content publication on the public website.

30

Under EU regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the EMA where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU Member States within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, an applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Sales of our products, if approved for marketing, will depend, in part, on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors, such as government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and limiting the coverage and reimbursement amounts for medical products and services. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or regulatory authorities in other countries. It is time consuming and expensive to seek reimbursement from third-party payors. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by third-party payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. In the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but they also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Accordingly, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product.

In addition, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of the product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several 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 drug products. Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers, or PBMs, and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.

In the United States, the federal government provides health insurance for people who are 65 years or older, and certain people with disabilities or certain conditions irrespective of their age, through the Medicare program, which is administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS. Coverage and reimbursement for products and services under Medicare are determined in accordance with the Social Security Act and pursuant to regulations promulgated by CMS, as well as the agency’s coverage and reimbursement guidance and determinations. Drugs and other products that are utilized within the hospital in-patient setting are typically reimbursed under a prospective payment system, or a predetermined payment amount that is based on diagnosis related groups, or DRGs for Medicare patients and under a bundled payment for commercially insured patients. These payment amounts differ by type of diagnoses, procedures performed and the severity of the patient’s condition, among other things. A drug that is used in a treatment or procedure under a specific DRG or bundled payment is generally not eligible for any separate payment. For catastrophic cases where costs greatly exceed the bundled payment amount, the hospital may be eligible for an outlier payment that is intended to cover part of the expense above the standard payment.

31

Medicaid is a health insurance program for low-income children, families, pregnant women, and people with disabilities that is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, but administered by the states. In general, state Medicaid programs are required to cover drugs and biologicals of manufacturers that have entered into a Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement, although such drugs and biologicals may be subject to prior authorization or other utilization controls.

The United States Congress and state legislatures from time to time propose and adopt initiatives aimed at cost containment, which could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, known collectively as the ACA, among other things, contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Adoption of general controls and measures, coupled with the tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceutical drugs. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or DHHS, as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits.  As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive healthcare provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of drug products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price, or ASP, to DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties.  

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA and as a result certain sections of the ACA have not been fully implemented or effectively repealed. Members of Congress have indicated that they may continue to seek to modify, repeal or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the ACA. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, was enacted in 2017 and, among other things, removed penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In December 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate was a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the ACA were invalid and the law in its entirety was unconstitutional. In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether other reforms enacted as part of the ACA but not specifically related to the individual mandate or health insurance could be severed from the rest of the ACA so as not to be declared invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and allocated one hour for oral arguments, which occurred on November 10, 2020. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be issued in mid-2021. The uncertainty around the future of the ACA, and in particular the impact to reimbursement levels, may lead to uncertainty or delay in the purchasing decisions of our customers, which may in turn negatively impact our product sales. If there are not adequate reimbursement levels, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

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, in the EU, the sole legal instrument at the EU level governing the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products is Council Directive 89/105/EEC, or the Price Transparency Directive. The aim of this Directive is to ensure that pricing and reimbursement mechanisms established in the EU Member States are transparent and objective, do not hinder the free movement of and trade in medicinal products in the EU, and do not hinder, prevent or distort competition on the market. The Price Transparency Directive does not provide any guidance concerning the specific criteria on the basis of which pricing and reimbursement decisions are to be made in individual EU Member States, nor does it have any direct consequence for pricing or reimbursement levels in individual EU Member States. The EU Member States are free to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and/or reimbursement levels of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the medicinal product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the medicinal product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms.

Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Sweden. The HTA process in the EU Member States is governed by the national laws of these countries. HTA is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact, and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. HTA generally focuses on the clinical efficacy and effectiveness, safety, cost, and cost-effectiveness of individual medicinal products as well as their potential implications for the healthcare system. Those elements of medicinal products are compared with other treatment options available on the market. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the

32

competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product vary between EU Member States. A negative HTA of one of our products by a leading and recognized HTA body could not only undermine our ability to obtain reimbursement for such product in the EU Member State in which such negative assessment was issued, but also in other EU Member States. For example, EU Member States that have not yet developed HTA mechanisms could rely to some extent on the HTA performed in countries with a developed HTA framework when adopting decisions concerning the pricing and reimbursement of a specific medicinal product.

Other Healthcare Laws

Our current and future business operations are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the state and foreign governments where we research, and, if approved, market, sell and distribute our therapeutic candidates. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, physician sunshine and drug pricing transparency laws and regulations such as:

33

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates. For example, in August 2017, the FDA Reauthorization Act was signed into law, which reauthorized the FDA’s user fee programs and included additional drug and device amendments to the FDCA, and in December 2019, former President Trump signed into law the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act or the “CREATES Act,” which aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some reference product manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic product developers access to samples of brand products. The CREATES Act established a private cause of action that permits a generic product developer to sue the reference product manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Whether and how generic product developers will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown.

As another example, in November 2020 the Trump Administration finalized regulations aimed at implementing a system whereby state governmental entities could lawfully import and distribute prescription drugs sourced from Canada, with the stated goal of lowering drug prices domestically. However, the impact of such future programs is uncertain, in part because lawsuits have been filed challenging the government’s authority to promulgate these regulations, but also because they may be vulnerable to being overturned by a joint resolution of disapproval from Congress under the procedures set forth in the Congressional Review Act, which could be applied to regulatory actions taken by the Trump Administration on or after August 21, 2020 (i.e., in the last 60 days of legislative session of the 116th Congress). Other regulatory actions that were initiated or finalized during the final months of the Trump Administration are also subject to uncertainty following the January 20, 2021 transition to a new Democrat-led presidential administration. Following his inauguration, President Biden took immediate steps to order a regulatory freeze on all pending substantive executive actions in order to permit incoming department and agency heads to review whether questions of fact, policy, and law may be implicated and to determine how to proceed.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of our product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely on a limited number of third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for our preclinical research and clinical trials. We currently employ internal resources to manage our manufacturing. We intend to have two suppliers for tebipenem HBr’s active pharmaceutical ingredient. Each supplier would be capable of producing kilogram quantities for commercial scale and would be able to produce over 10kg of active pharmaceutical ingredient under cGMP conditions.

34

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2020, we had 89 full-time employees, including a total of 20 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these employees, 55 employees were primarily engaged in research and development activities, and 34 provide administrative, business and operations support. All of these employees were based in the United States. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our employee relations to be good.

We hire and maintain an experienced, committed, diverse, inclusive and highly motivated workforce. Effective attraction, development, and retention of human resource talent, or human capital, is vital to the success of our mission-driven growth strategy. We face intense competition for qualified individuals from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and other research institutions, and we believe that our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. To attract qualified applicants to our company and retain our employees, we offer a competitive rewards package consisting of base salary and cash target bonus, a comprehensive benefit package and equity compensation.

We want our employees to learn, grow and look for ways to help develop skills through industry, company and functional training, as well as mentoring opportunities. We offer a robust set of career-enhancing learning experiences and initiatives to all employees, aligned with our mission, vision, and values.

Our Corporate Information

We were formed as Spero Therapeutics, LLC in December 2013 under the laws of the State of Delaware. On June 30, 2017, through a series of transactions, Spero Therapeutics, LLC merged with and into Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as Spero OpCo, Inc.), a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, and our telephone number is (857) 242-1600. Our website address is www.sperotherapeutics.com.

Available Information

Financial and other information about us is available on our website. We make available on our website, free of charge, copies of our Annual Report 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. The information contained in our website is not intended to be a part of this filing.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes, and in other documents that we file with the SEC, in evaluating our company and our business. Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. If any of the events described in the following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected, and the trading price of our securities could decline. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The outbreak of the novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, could adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business.  In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread globally. In response to the spread of COVID-19, we have closed our offices with our administrative employees continuing their work outside of our offices and restricted on-site staff to only those required to execute their job responsibilities.

As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, or similar pandemics, we have experienced, and may in the future experience, certain disruptions that could materially impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials.  Such disruptions may include:

35

These and other factors arising from the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen in countries that are already afflicted with COVID-19 or could return to countries where the pandemic has been partially contained, each of which could further adversely impact our ability to conduct clinical trials and our business generally, and could have a material adverse impact on our business, operations and financial condition and results.

In addition, the trading prices for our common stock and the securities of other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock or such sales may be on unfavorable terms. The COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve rapidly. The extent to which the outbreak may impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the outbreak, travel restrictions and actions to contain the outbreak or treat its impact, such as social distancing and quarantines or lock-downs in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have not generated any revenue from the sale of our products, have a history of losses and expect to incur substantial future losses. The report of our auditor on our consolidated financial statements expresses substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern; if we are unable to obtain additional capital, we may not be able to continue our operations on the scope or scale as currently conducted, and that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have not generated any revenue from the sale of our products and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in 2013. Our net losses were $78.3 million and $60.9 million during the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. All of our product candidates are in development, none have been approved for sale and we may never have a product candidate approved for commercialization.

In accordance with Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), we are required to evaluate whether there are conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern from the issuance date of our financial statements. Based on our current plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of December 31, 2020, together with the committed funding from our existing BARDA contract and other non-dilutive funding commitments, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2022, including through the submission of the NDA for tebipenem HBr. This timeline is subject to uncertainty as to the timing of future expenditures. We have developed plans to mitigate this risk, which primarily consist of raising additional capital through some combination of equity or debt financings, potential new collaborations, additional grant funding and/or reducing cash expenditures. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned clinical trials, research stage programs and commercial activities. The actions necessary to reduce spending under this plan at a level that mitigates the factors described above is not considered probable, as defined in the accounting standards and therefore, the full extent to which management may extend our funds through these actions may not be considered in management’s assessment of our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, we have concluded that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern.

36

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future; if we are unable to achieve commercialization, revenue from product sales, and, ultimately, profitability, the market value of our common stock will likely decline.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to advance our product candidates through preclinical and clinical development and seek marketing approval for such candidates if clinical trials are successful. Our expenses will also increase substantially if and as we:

If our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, do not gain regulatory approval, or do not achieve market acceptance following regulatory approval and commercialization, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. 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. If we are unable to achieve and sustain profitability, the market value of our common stock will likely decline.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing biopharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when, if ever, we will become profitable. Our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority to perform studies in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates.

We expect that we will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, or do not receive payment under our government awards, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We expect that our expenses will continue to increase as we commence and advance our ongoing and planned clinical trials and other studies of tebipenem HBr, SPR720 and SPR206, seek marketing approval for tebipenem HBr, and evaluate the advancement of our other product candidates. If we obtain marketing approval for tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing. Some of these expenses may be incurred in advance of marketing approval, and could be substantial. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, government funding or other sources. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of December 31, 2020, together with the committed funding from our existing BARDA contract and other non-dilutive funding commitments will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2022, including through the submission of the NDA for tebipenem HBr. Our cash forecasts are based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

37

For the year ended December 31, 2020, our non-dilutive sources of funding consisted of an award from BARDA for tebipenem HBr, an award from NIAID under its Small Business Innovation Research program or SBIR, for our SPR720 program, an award from NIAID for SPR206, an award from the DoD that provides partial funding for the development of our Potentiator product candidates and an award from the DoD Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, or CDMRP, Joint Warfighter Medical Research Program for SPR206.

The BARDA award provides total reimbursement to us of $46.8 million for qualified expenses for tebipenem HBr development over a five-year period through November 2021. The award initially committed funding of $15.7 million over a three-year base period from July 2018 to June 2021 for cUTI development activities. In May 2019, the contract was modified to include additional funding of approximately $2.5 million for tebipenem HBr, increasing the amount of initial committed funding from $15.7 million to approximately $18.2 million. In February 2020, BARDA exercised its first option under the contract, committing $15.9 million for tebipenem HBr through November 2021. Total committed funding under the BARDA award to date is $34.1 million, including the first option exercised in 2020. There is a second option exercisable by BARDA for the remaining $12.7 million of funding, subject to specified milestones being achieved under the award agreement. As part of our tebipenem HBr collaboration with BARDA described above, there will be studies assessing the efficacy of tebipenem HBr in treatment of infections caused by biodefense threats such as anthrax, plague, and melioidosis, including a clinical trial in pneumonia patients. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, or DTRA, will provide up to $10.0 million in addition to the total potential $46.8 million from BARDA, to cover the cost of the nonclinical biodefense aspects of the collaboration program. While such funding would be for the purpose of developing tebipenem HBr in these areas, we will not receive any funds directly from DTRA. Upon these achievements, BARDA may exercise its second option to fund a Phase 2 clinical trial in community-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients to demonstrate safety and data suggestive of efficacy.

The NIAID contract for SPR206 provides for total development funding of up to $6.5 million over a base period and three option periods. To date, funding for the base period and the first two option periods totaling $5.9 million have been committed. The NIAID SBIR award is structured as a base period followed by a single option. For the base period of March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018, NIAID committed funding of approximately $0.6 million for the SPR720 program. In February 2018 NIAID exercised the approximately $0.4 million option, which had an initial period of performance from March 1, 2018 through February 28, 2019. In January 2019, the period of performance for this award was extended for an additional 12-month period. Our DoD cooperative agreement is structured as a single, two-year $1.5 million award. We are eligible for the full funding from the DoD and there are no options to be exercised at a later date. The NIAID award is subject to termination for convenience at any time by NIAID. NIAID is not obligated to provide funding to us beyond the base period amounts from Congressionally approved annual appropriations. The DoD CDMRP award commits funding of $5.9 million over a four-year period to cover the costs of select Phase 1 pharmacology studies, 28-day GLP non-human primate toxicology study and microbiological surveillance studies that would be required for a potential NDA submission with the FDA for SPR206.

38

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our product candidates, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements and government funding arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. We are filing a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3  with the SEC concurrently with the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which when declared effective, will register for sale up to $300.0 million of any combination of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants, rights and/or units from time to time and at prices and on terms that we may determine, including up to $75.0 million of our common stock available for issuance pursuant to an “at-the-market” offering program sales agreement that we entered into with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., or Cantor. Under the sales agreement, Cantor may sell shares of our common stock by any method permitted by law deemed to be an “at the market,” or ATM, offering as defined in Rule 415 of the Securities Act, subject to the terms of the sales agreement.

We may seek to raise additional capital at any time. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, the ownership interest of our then existing stockholders may be materially diluted, and the terms of these securities could include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that could adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. In addition, securing additional financing would require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of our product candidates.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards may be limited.

As of December 31, 2020, we had United States federal, state and foreign net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, of $228.1 million, $226.2 million and $10.7 million, respectively.  The federal NOLs of $73.0 million will expire at various dates from 2033 to 2037 and approximately $155.1 million can be carried forward indefinitely. The state NOLs begin to expire in 2033 and will expire at various dates through 2039.  The foreign NOLs do not expire. Utilization of these NOLs depends on many factors, including our future income, which cannot be assured. These NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset our future income tax liabilities. In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership by 5% stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We have not determined if we have experienced Section 382 ownership changes in the past and if a portion of our NOLs is subject to an annual limitation under Section 382. In addition, we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. If we determine that an ownership change has occurred and our ability to use our historical NOLs is materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations.

Under current United States federal tax legislation, although the treatment of net operating loss carryforwards arising in tax years beginning on or before December 31, 2017 has generally not changed, net operating loss carryforwards arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be used to offset only 80% of taxable income. In addition, net operating losses arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, as opposed to the 20-year carryforward under prior law.

We have a limited operating history and no history of commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

We were established in 2013 and began operations in 2014. Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our technology and developing tebipenem HBr and our other product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully obtain marketing approval, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

39

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will eventually need to transition from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, stockholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

Risks Related to Product Development and Commercialization

We are heavily dependent on the success of tebipenem HBr, which is still under development, and our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize tebipenem HBr. If we are unable to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize tebipenem HBr, or if we experience significant delays in doing so, our business could be materially harmed.

We currently have no products approved for sale and have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of tebipenem HBr as a product candidate for the treatment of MDR bacterial infections. Our near-term prospects are substantially dependent on our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize tebipenem HBr. The success of tebipenem HBr will depend on several factors, including the following:

Successful development of tebipenem HBr for any additional indications would be subject to these same risks.

Many of these factors are beyond our control, including clinical development, the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing and sales efforts of any future collaborator. If we are unable to develop, receive marketing approval for, or successfully commercialize tebipenem HBr, or if we experience delays as a result of any of these factors or otherwise, our business could be materially harmed. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to manufacture and market tebipenem HBr, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such product, if approved.

40

We have no experience as a company in obtaining regulatory approval for a drug.

As a company, we have never obtained regulatory approval for, or commercialized, a drug. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept any or all of our planned new drug applications, or NDAs, for substantive review or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain regulatory approval for any current or future product candidates. If the FDA does not approve any of our planned NDAs, it may require that we conduct additional costly clinical, nonclinical or manufacturing validation studies before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any NDA or other application that we submit may be significantly delayed, possibly for several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. Any failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing tebipenem HBr or any of our other product candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve any NDA or other application that we submit. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon the development of our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. We face similar risks for our applications in foreign jurisdictions.

If clinical trials of product candidates that we advance to clinical trials fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of such product candidates.

We may not commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA or in other countries without obtaining approvals from comparable foreign regulatory authorities, such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and we may never receive such approvals. We must complete extensive preclinical development and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans before we will be able to obtain these approvals. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is inherently uncertain as to outcome. We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates.

The clinical development of tebipenem HBr, SPR720 and any of our other product candidates is susceptible to the risk of failure inherent at any stage of drug development, including failure to demonstrate efficacy in a trial or across a broad population of patients, the occurrence of severe adverse events, failure to comply with protocols or applicable regulatory requirements, and determination by the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority that a drug product is not approvable. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier nonclinical studies or clinical trials. The results of preclinical and other nonclinical studies and/or early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Notwithstanding any promising results in early nonclinical studies or clinical trials, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. For example, although tebipenem HBr is a new formulation of the active pharmaceutical ingredient tebipenem that exhibited a favorable safety and efficacy profile during clinical trials conducted by Meiji and a global pharmaceutical company, which we refer to as Global Pharma, in Japan, we may nonetheless fail to obtain regulatory approval for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTI based on the results of our recently completed Phase 3 clinical trial and those supporting foreign data.

In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates. Even if we believe that the results of our clinical trials warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants, among others. It is possible that even if one or more of our product candidates has a beneficial effect, that effect will not be detected during clinical evaluation as a result of one of the factors listed or otherwise. Conversely, as a result of the same factors, our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any. Similarly, in our clinical trials, we may fail to detect toxicity of or intolerability of our product candidates or may determine that our product candidates are toxic or not well tolerated when that is not in fact the case. In the case of our clinical trials, results may differ on the basis of the type of bacteria with which patients are infected. We cannot make assurances that any clinical trials that we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

41

We may encounter unforeseen events prior to, during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for tebipenem HBr or any of our other product candidates, including:

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the institutional review boards, or IRBs, of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, if any, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug or changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions. On February 5, 2021, we announced that the FDA informed us that a clinical hold had been placed on our Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720 following mortality events in a non-human primate toxicology study.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of tebipenem HBr, SPR720 or any other product candidate beyond the trials and testing that we contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates, if the results of these trials or tests are unfavorable or are only modestly favorable or if there are safety concerns associated with tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate, we may:

42

Our failure to successfully initiate and complete clinical trials of our product candidates and to demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates would significantly harm our business. Our product candidate development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals and we may be required to obtain additional funds to complete clinical trials. We cannot make assurances that our clinical trials will begin as planned or be completed on schedule, if at all, or that we will not need to restructure our trials after they have begun. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, delays of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. We may not be able to initiate, continue or complete clinical trials of our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in clinical trials as required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA. Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, and is affected by many factors, including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or might require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, slow down or halt our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to seek and obtain the marketing approval required to commence product sales and generate revenue, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing if needed.

To support our accelerated clinical development strategy for tebipenem HBr, we are relying, in part, on clinical data from two exploratory Phase 2 clinical trials conducted by Meiji (ME1211) and Global Pharma (L-084 04) in Japan, which were not conducted in accordance with FDA guidance for clinical trials in patients with cUTI. To the extent that these clinical trial design differences limit our use of the clinical data, our proposed clinical trial plan for tebipenem HBr with the FDA could be materially delayed and we may incur material additional costs.

There are significant differences in the trial design for the two exploratory Phase 2 clinical trials conducted by Meiji and its partner in Japan compared to the clinical trial design described by the FDA in its guidance for clinical trials in patients with cUTI, including:

43

To the extent that these clinical trial design differences limit our use of the clinical data, our proposed clinical trial plan for tebipenem HBr with the FDA could be materially delayed and we may incur material additional costs.

Preliminary or interim data from our clinical studies that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any future collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek marketing approvals for their commercial sale. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future larger registration clinical trials will be successful. This is because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials.

Preliminary or interim data from our clinical studies are not necessarily predictive of final data. Preliminary and interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change, as more patient data become available and we issue our final clinical study report. Preliminary or interim data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could affect our planned clinical path for tebipenem HBr, SPR720 or other product candidates we advance into clinical trials, including potentially increasing cost and/or causing delay in such development.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We therefore do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates.

Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or other unexpected properties of tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate may be identified during development or after approval that could delay, prevent or cause the withdrawal of regulatory approval, limit the commercial potential, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval.

Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by, or other unexpected properties of, our product candidates could cause us, an institutional review board, or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt our clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label, the imposition of distribution or use restrictions or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. If tebipenem HBr or any of our other product candidates is associated with serious or unexpected adverse events or undesirable side effects, the FDA, the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, or a DSMB, could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

To date, patients treated with the active ingredient in tebipenem HBr have experienced drug-related side effects including diarrhea, temporary increases in hepatic enzymes, allergic reactions, rashes and convulsions. To date, tebipenem HBr has generally been well tolerated in clinical trials, and there have been no reports of serious adverse events related to tebipenem HBr, but additional adverse events may emerge in any subsequent clinical trials.

If unexpected adverse events occur in any of our ongoing or planned clinical trials, we may need to abandon development of our product candidates, or limit development to lower doses or to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other unfavorable characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in clinical or earlier stage testing are later found to cause undesirable or unexpected side effects that prevented further development of the compound.

44

Undesirable side effects or other unexpected adverse events or properties of tebipenem HBr or any of our other product candidates could arise or become known either during clinical development or, if approved, after the approved product has been marketed. If such an event occurs during development, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or could deny approval of, tebipenem HBr or our other product candidates. If such an event occurs after such product candidates are approved, a number of potentially significant negative consequences may result, including:

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate, if approved, or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which could delay or prevent us from generating revenue from the sale of our products and harm our business and results of operations.

Even if a product candidate does obtain regulatory approval, it may never achieve the market acceptance by physicians, patients, hospitals, third-party payors and others in the medical community that is necessary for commercial success and the market opportunity may be smaller than we estimate.

Even if we obtain FDA or other regulatory approvals and are able to launch tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate commercially, the approved product candidate may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals (including pharmacy directors) and third-party payors and, ultimately, may not be commercially successful. For example, physicians are often reluctant to switch their patients from existing therapies even when new and potentially more effective or convenient treatments enter the market. Further, patients often acclimate to the therapy that they are currently taking and do not want to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or they are required to switch therapies due to lack of coverage and reimbursement for existing therapies. If an approved product candidate does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues or any profits from operations. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate for which we receive approval depends on a number of factors, including:

45

Any failure by tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate that obtains regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our business prospects.

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 intend to focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both their potential for marketing approval and commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications 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 royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate if such product candidate is approved.

We do not have a sales, marketing or distribution infrastructure and we have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource those functions to third parties. We intend to build a commercial organization in the United States and recruit experienced sales, marketing and distribution professionals. The development of sales, marketing and distribution capabilities will require substantial resources, will be time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and distribution capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization costs. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In addition, we may not be able to hire a sales force in the United States that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we intend to target. If we are unable to establish a sales force and marketing and distribution capabilities, our operating results may be adversely affected.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:

We intend to use collaborators to assist with the commercialization of tebipenem HBr and any other product candidate outside the United States. As a result of entering into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us would likely be lower than if we were to directly market and sell products in those markets. Furthermore, we may be unsuccessful in entering into the necessary arrangements with third parties or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, we likely would have little control over such third parties, and any of them might fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively.

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

46

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

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide with respect to tebipenem HBr and our other product candidates that we may seek to develop and commercialize in the future. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of resistant infections. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing technologies and drug products that are more effective or less costly than tebipenem HBr or any other product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop, which could render our product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive.

There are a variety of available oral therapies marketed for the treatment urinary tract infections that we would expect would compete with tebipenem HBr, such as Levaquin, Cipro and Bactrim. Many of the available therapies are well established and widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products, for example in the fluoroquinolone class. However, the susceptibility of urinary tract pathogens to the existing treatment alternatives is waning. If tebipenem HBr is approved, the pricing may be at a significant premium over other competitive products. This may make it difficult for tebipenem HBr to compete with these products.

There are also a number of oral product candidates in clinical development by third parties that are intended to treat UTIs. Some mid- to late-stage product candidates include ceftibuten/clavulanate, or C-Scape, from Cipla Therapeutics, Inc., and sulopenem from Iterum Therapeutics Limited. If our competitors obtain marketing approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for their product candidates more rapidly than us, it could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

There are several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of infections resistant to first-line therapy for Gram-negative infections, including ceftazidime-avibactam, or Avycaz, from Allergan plc and Pfizer Inc., ceftolozane-tazobactam, or Zerbaxa, from Merck & Co., imipenem/cilastatin and relebactam, or Recarbrio, from Merck & Co., plazomicin, or Zemdri, from Cipla Therapeutics, Inc., cefiderocol, or Fetroja, from Shionogi & Co. Ltd., eravacycline, or Xerava, from Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and meropenem-vaborbactam, or Vabomere, from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.

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

In July 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act was passed, which included the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act, or the GAIN Act. The GAIN Act is intended to provide incentives for the development of new, qualified infectious disease products. In December 2016, the Cures Act was passed, providing additional support for the development of new infectious disease products. These incentives may result in more competition in the market for new antibiotics, and may cause pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with more resources than we have to shift their efforts towards the development of product candidates that could be competitive with tebipenem HBr and our other product candidates.

Even if we are able to commercialize tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate, the product may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, or third-party payor coverage and reimbursement policies that could harm our business.

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

47

We currently expect that some of our product candidates, if approved, will be administered in a hospital inpatient setting. In the United States, governmental and other third-party payors generally reimburse hospitals a single bundled payment established on a prospective basis intended to cover all items and services provided to the patient during a single hospitalization. Hospitals bill third-party payors for all or a portion of the fees associated with the patient’s hospitalization and bill patients for any deductibles or co-payments. Because there is typically no separate reimbursement for drugs administered in a hospital inpatient setting, some of our target customers may be unwilling to adopt our product candidates in light of the additional associated cost. If we are forced to lower the price we charge for our product candidates, if approved, our gross margins may decrease, which would adversely affect our ability to invest in and grow our business.

To the extent tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate we develop is used in an outpatient setting, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments are available from government health programs and third-party payors. If coverage is not available, or reimbursement is limited, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investments. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as health insurers and managed care organizations, publish formularies that identify the medications they will cover and the related payment levels. The healthcare industry is focused on cost containment, both in the United States and elsewhere. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably.

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

We cannot predict whether bacteria may develop resistance to tebipenem HBr or our other product candidates, which could affect their revenue potential.

We are developing tebipenem HBr and certain of our other product candidates to treat drug-resistant bacterial infections. The bacteria responsible for these infections evolve quickly and readily transfer their resistance mechanisms within and between species. We cannot predict whether or when bacterial resistance to tebipenem HBr or any of such other product candidates may develop.

As a carbapenem, tebipenem HBr is not active against organisms expressing a resistance mechanism mediated by enzymes known as carbapenemases. Although occurrence of this resistance mechanism is currently rare, we cannot predict whether carbapenemase-mediated resistance will become widespread in regions where we intend to market tebipenem HBr if it is approved. The growth of drug resistant infections in community settings or in countries with poor public health infrastructures, or the potential use of tebipenem HBr or any of our other product candidates outside of controlled hospital settings, could contribute to the rise of resistance. If resistance to tebipenem HBr or any of our other product candidates becomes prevalent, our ability to generate revenue from tebipenem HBr or such product candidates could suffer.

If we are not successful in discovering, developing and commercializing additional product candidates, our ability to expand our business and achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired.

Although a substantial amount of our efforts will focus on our ongoing and planned clinical trials and potential approval of our lead product candidate, tebipenem HBr, SPR720 and our Potentiator product candidate, SPR206, a key element of our strategy is to discover, develop and commercialize a portfolio of therapeutics to treat drug resistant bacterial infections. We are seeking to do so through our internal research programs and are exploring, and intend to explore in the future, strategic partnerships for the development of new product candidates.

Research programs to identify product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for many reasons, including the following:

48

If we are unsuccessful in identifying and developing additional product candidates, our potential for growth may be impaired.

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

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

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

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

49

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses that we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Moreover, we do not currently maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including public health measures in place due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our contract research organizations or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs, and could subject us to liability.

We utilize information technology systems and networks to process, transmit and store electronic information in connection with our business activities. As the use of digital technologies has increased, cyber incidents, including deliberate attacks and attempts to gain unauthorized access to computer systems and networks, have increased in frequency and sophistication. These threats pose a risk to the security of our systems and networks and the confidentiality, availability and integrity of our data. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in preventing cyber-attacks or successfully mitigating their effects.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our contract research organizations and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage or disruption from hacking, computer viruses, software bugs, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication, equipment and electrical failures. While we have not, to our knowledge, experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations or the operations of those third parties with which we contract, it could result in a material disruption of our programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing clinical trials for any of our product candidates could result in delays in our development and regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure or theft of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, the further development of our product candidates could be delayed or our competitive position could be compromised.

Any such disruption or security breach, as well as any action by us or our employees or contractors that might be inconsistent with the rapidly evolving data privacy and security laws and regulations applicable within the United States and elsewhere where we conduct business, could result in enforcement actions by the United States, the United States Federal government or foreign governments, liability or sanctions under data privacy laws that protect personally identifiable information, regulatory penalties, other legal proceedings such as but not limited to private litigation, the incurrence of significant remediation costs, disruptions to our development programs, business operations and collaborations, diversion of management efforts and damage to our reputation, which could harm our business and operations. Because of the rapidly moving nature of technology and the increasing sophistication of cybersecurity threats, our measures to prevent, respond to and minimize such risks may be unsuccessful.

In addition, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted a comprehensive general data privacy regulation, or GDPR, in 2016 to replace the current European Union Data Protection Directive and related country-specific legislation. The GDPR took effect in May 2018 and governs the collection and use of personal data in the European Union. The GDPR, which is wide-ranging in scope, will impose several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States, enhances enforcement authority and imposes large penalties for noncompliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the infringer, whichever is greater.

The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR has been and will continue to be a rigorous and time-intensive process that has increased and will continue to increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we or our collaborators may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation and reputational harm in connection with any European activities, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

50

In addition, in June 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which takes effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase data breach litigation. Although the CCPA includes exemptions for certain clinical trials data, and HIPAA protected health information, the law may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. The CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new federal and state privacy legislation that, if passed, could increase our potential liability, increase our compliance costs and adversely affect our business.

We or third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by natural disasters and/or health epidemics, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business operations. If a natural disaster, health epidemic, such as COVID-19, or other event beyond our control occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our office and/or lab spaces, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We expect to depend on collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of some of our product candidates. Our prospects with respect to those product candidates will depend in part on the success of those collaborations.

Although we expect to commercialize tebipenem HBr ourselves in the United States, we intend to commercialize it outside the United States through collaboration arrangements. In addition, we may seek third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. For instance, in January 2019, we entered into a license agreement with Everest, which was amended and restated in January 2021, whereby we granted Everest an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR206, or products containing SPR206, in Greater China, South Korea and certain Southeast Asian countries. Additionally, in June 2019, we entered into a collaboration agreement with the Bill and Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute, or the Gates MRI, to develop SPR720 for the treatment of lung infections caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Our likely collaborators for any other marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements we may pursue include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.

We may derive revenue from research and development fees, license fees, milestone payments and royalties under any collaborative arrangement into which we enter. Our ability to generate revenue from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. In addition, our collaborators may have the right to abandon research or development projects and terminate applicable agreements, including funding obligations, prior to or upon the expiration of the agreed upon terms. As a result, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of a product candidate that we license to a third party.

We face significant competition in seeking and obtaining appropriate collaborators. Collaborations involving our product candidates may pose a number of risks, including the following:

51

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. If a collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination, it could decide to delay, diminish or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us.

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

We will require additional funds to complete the development and potential commercialization of tebipenem HBr and our other product candidates. For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates. Moreover, we intend to utilize a variety of types of collaboration arrangements for the potential commercialization of our product candidates outside the United States. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include:

The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available for collaboration and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

52

We rely on third parties to conduct all of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our product candidates. If they do not perform satisfactorily, our business may be materially harmed.

We do not independently conduct nonclinical studies that comply with GLP requirements. We also do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials of any of our product candidates. We rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our clinical trials of tebipenem HBr, SPR720 or our other product candidates and expect to rely on these third parties to conduct clinical trials of our other product candidates and potential product candidates. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it would delay our product development activities and increase our costs.

Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities limits our control over these activities but we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards. For example, notwithstanding the obligations of a contract research organization for a trial of one of our product candidates, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial and applicable regulatory requirements. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GLP studies and our clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our GLP-compliant nonclinical studies and clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions also require us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are accurate and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. The FDA enforces these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, clinical trial sites and institutional review boards. If we or our third-party contractors fail to comply with applicable GCP standards, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our product candidates, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We cannot make assurances that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP. We are also required to register clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Furthermore, the third parties conducting clinical trials on our behalf are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such contractors, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing development programs. These contractors may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could impede their ability to devote appropriate time to our clinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates. If that occurs, we may not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. In such an event, our financial results and the commercial prospects for tebipenem HBr or our other product candidates could be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed, impaired or foreclosed.

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

53

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

We do not currently have nor do we plan to build the internal infrastructure or capability to manufacture tebipenem HBr or our other product candidates for use in the conduct of our preclinical research, our clinical trials or for commercial supply. We currently rely on and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture supplies of tebipenem HBr and our other product candidates, and we expect to rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture commercial quantities of any product candidate that we commercialize following approval for marketing by applicable regulatory authorities, if any. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks, including:

We currently rely on a small number of third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance and finished product for our preclinical research and clinical trials. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these third parties. We also do not have any current contractual relationships for the manufacture of commercial supplies of any of our product candidates. If any of our existing manufacturers should become unavailable to us for any reason, we may incur delays in identifying or qualifying replacements.

If any of our product candidates are approved by any regulatory agency, we intend to enter into agreements with third-party contract manufacturers for the commercial production of those products. This process is difficult and time consuming and we may face competition for access to manufacturing facilities as there are a limited number of contract manufacturers operating under cGMPs that are capable of manufacturing our product candidates. Consequently, we may not be able to reach agreement with third-party manufacturers on satisfactory terms, which could delay our commercialization.

Third-party manufacturers are required to comply with cGMPs and similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Facilities used by our third-party manufacturers must be approved by the FDA after we submit an NDA and before potential approval of the product candidate. Similar regulations apply to manufacturers of our product candidates for use or sale in foreign countries. We do not control the manufacturing process and are completely dependent on our third-party manufacturers for compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements for the manufacture of our product candidates. The inability or failure of our manufacturers to successfully manufacture material that conforms to the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA and any applicable foreign regulatory authority, may require us to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which could result in delays in obtaining approval for the applicable product candidate. In addition, our manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign agencies for compliance with cGMPs and similar regulatory requirements. Failure by any of our manufacturers to comply with applicable cGMPs or other regulatory requirements could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspensions or withdrawals of approvals, operating restrictions, interruptions in supply and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

54

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we in-license or acquire development or commercialization rights to products, technology or data from third parties, including those for tebipenem HBr, we could lose such rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to agreements with Meiji for tebipenem HBr, Vertex Pharmaceuticals for SPR720 and PBB Distributions Limited for SPR206, and we may enter into additional agreements, including license agreements, with other parties in the future that impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payments, royalties, insurance and other obligations on us.

For example, we have an exclusive know-how license with Meiji, or the Meiji License, that gives us rights outside of specified countries in Asia to develop, manufacture, and commercialize tebipenem HBr as well as the right to use, cross-reference, file or incorporate by reference any information and relevant Meiji regulatory documentation to support any regulatory filings outside of Asia. In addition, we have the right to develop, manufacture and have manufactured tebipenem HBr in Asia solely for the purpose of furthering development, manufacturing and commercialization of tebipenem HBr outside of Asia. In exchange for those rights, we are obligated to satisfy diligence requirements, including using commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize tebipenem HBr and to implement a specified development plan, meeting specified development milestones and providing an update on progress on an annual basis. The Meiji License requires us to pay future milestone payments of up to $2.0 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones and royalties of a low single-digit percentage on net sales on a country-by-country basis.

If we fail to comply with our obligations to Meiji or any of our other partners, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product candidate that is covered by these agreements, which could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

Risks Related to Our United States Government Contracts and to Certain Grant Agreements

Our use of government funding for certain of our programs adds complexity to our research and commercialization efforts with respect to those programs and may impose requirements that increase the costs of commercialization and production of product candidates developed under those government-funded programs.

We have received significant non-dilutive financing from various government agencies for the further development of our product candidates. Such funding sources may pose risks to us not encountered in other commercial contracts, including significant regulatory compliance risks. Contracts funded by the United States government and its agencies include provisions that reflect the government’s substantial public policy and compliance requirements, and substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including powers of the government to:

We may not have the right to prohibit the United States government from using certain technologies developed by us, and we may not be able to prohibit third-party companies, including our competitors, from using those technologies in providing products and services to the United States government. The United States government generally takes the position that it has the right to royalty-free use of technologies that are developed under United States government contracts.

55

In addition, government contracts and grants, and subcontracts and subawards awarded in the performance of those contracts and grants, normally contain additional requirements that may increase our costs of doing business, reduce our profits, and expose us to liability for failure to comply with these terms and conditions. These requirements include, for example:

If we fail to maintain compliance with these requirements, we may be subject to potential contract or FCA liability and to termination of our contracts.

United States government agencies have special contracting requirements that give them the ability to unilaterally control our contracts.

United States government contracts typically contain unfavorable termination provisions and are subject to audit and modification by the government at its sole discretion, which will subject us to additional risks. These risks include the ability of the United States government to unilaterally:

The United States government will be able to terminate any of its contracts with us, either for convenience or if we default by failing to perform in accordance with or to achieve the milestones set forth in the contract schedules and terms. Termination-for-convenience provisions generally enable us to recover only our costs incurred or committed and settlement expenses on the work completed prior to termination. Except for the amount of services received by the government, termination-for-default provisions do not permit these recoveries and would make us liable for excess costs incurred by the United States government in procuring undelivered items from another source.

Our business is subject to audit by the United States government and other potential sources for grant funding, including under our contracts with BARDA, NIAID and DoD, and a negative outcome in an audit could adversely affect our business

United States government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, or the DHHS, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or the DCAA, routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards.

The DHHS and the DCAA also review the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, compensation and management information systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be paid, while such costs already paid must be refunded. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including:

In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us, which could cause our stock price to decrease.

56

Laws and regulations affecting government contracts make it more expensive and difficult for us to successfully conduct our business.

We must comply with numerous laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of government contracts, which can make it more difficult for us to retain our rights under our government contracts. These laws and regulations affect how we conduct business with government agencies. Among the most significant government contracting regulations that affect our business are:

These requirements change frequently, such as through appropriations bills or executive orders. Any changes in applicable laws and regulations could restrict our ability to maintain our existing BARDA and other government contracts and obtain new contracts, which could limit our ability to conduct our business and materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Provisions in our United States government contracts, including our contracts with BARDA, may affect our intellectual property rights.

Certain of our activities have been funded, and may in the future be funded, by the United States government, including through our contracts with BARDA. When new technologies are developed with United States government funding, the government obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including the right to a nonexclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention and rights that may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise “march-in” rights. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the United States government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations or to give preference to United States industry. In addition, United States government-funded inventions must be reported to the government, United States government funding must be disclosed in any resulting patent applications, and our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products in the United States.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary chemistry technology and product candidates. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage that we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds and technologies commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Furthermore, changes in patent laws in the United States, including those made by the America Invents Act of 2011, may affect the scope, strength and enforceability of our patent rights or the nature of proceedings which may be brought by us related to our patent rights.

57

Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, in the US there is an exception for one’s own publication of an invention prior to filing a patent application for the invention.  Most other countries have no such exception and any publication prior to filing is an absolute bar to patentability. 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. As a result of the America Invents Act of 2011, the United States transitioned to a first-inventor-to-file system in March 2013, under which, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. However, as a result of the lag in the publication of patent applications following filing in the United States, we are still not be able to be certain upon filing that we are the first to file for patent protection for any invention. Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents 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 they claim that patents owned or licensed by us are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. Alternatively, our competitors may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable. Even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. In addition, 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.

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

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property, or those of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. 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 this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

58

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 concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, or otherwise become involved in disputes regarding our intellectual property rights, such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary chemistry technology without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous third-party United States and non-United States issued patents and pending applications exist in the area of antibacterial treatment, including compounds, formulations, treatment methods and synthetic processes that may be applied towards the synthesis of antibiotics. If any of their patents or patent applications cover our product candidates or technologies, we may not be free to manufacture or market our product candidates as planned.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology or product candidates, including interference proceedings before the USPTO. Intellectual property disputes arise in a number of areas including with respect to patents, use of other proprietary rights and the contractual terms of license arrangements. Third parties may assert claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. With respect to our Meiji License of certain know-how used in tebipenem pivoxil HBr, we are neither a party to, nor an express third-party beneficiary of, the letter agreement between Meiji and Global Pharma consenting to Meiji’s arrangement with us. As such, if any dispute among the parties were to occur, our direct enforcement rights with respect to the letter agreement may be limited or uncertain. A termination or early expiration of the head license between Meiji and Global Pharma (which currently by its terms is set to expire in January 2022) or any restriction on our ability to use the Global Pharma know-how could have a negative impact on our development of tebipenem HBr and adversely affect our business.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the infringing product candidate or product. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative effect on our business.

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or contractors have misappropriated the intellectual property of a third party, or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees, consultants and contractors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that these individuals do not use the intellectual property and other proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed such intellectual property or other proprietary information. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants 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. To the extent that we fail to obtain such assignments or such assignments are breached, we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and scientific personnel.

59

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, in seeking to develop and maintain a competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our consultants, independent contractors, advisors, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, suppliers and other third parties. We, as well as our licensors, also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with employees and certain consultants. Any party with whom we have executed such an agreement may breach that agreement and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such third party, or those to whom they communicate such technology or information, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business and competitive position could be harmed.

We have registered trademarks and pending trademark applications. Failure to enforce our registered marks or secure registration of our pending trademark applications could adversely affect our business.

We have registered our trademarks for our name and logo in the United States and other countries and have a number of pending trademark applications in the United States and other countries. As of December 31, 2020, Spero therapeutics has two registered United States trademarks, nine registered foreign trademarks, and nine pending trademark applications. If our registered trademarks are invalidated, we may be unable to exclusively use our name or logo in certain jurisdictions or may need to change our name or logo in certain jurisdiction, which could affect our business. If we do not secure registrations for our pending trademark applications, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties, which could adversely affect our business. We have not yet registered trademarks for any of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. When we file trademark applications for our product candidates, those applications may not be allowed for registration, and registered trademarks may not be obtained, maintained, or enforced. During trademark registration proceedings in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, we may receive rejections. We are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, but we may not be able to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings.

In addition, any proprietary name we propose to use with tebipenem HBr or any other product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable proprietary product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Legal Compliance Matters

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize tebipenem HBr or our other product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, with regulations differing from country to country. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We currently do not have any products approved for sale in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party contract research organizations to assist us in this process.

The time required to obtain approval, if any, by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. Neither we nor any future collaborators are permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States until we or they receive regulatory approval of an NDA from the FDA.

60

In order to obtain approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our collaborators must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe that the nonclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, and it may otherwise object to elements of our clinical development program.

We have not submitted an NDA for any of our product candidates, although we are currently preparing the NDA to seek marketing approval for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTI. An NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy for each desired indication. The NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product candidate. Obtaining approval of an NDA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. The FDA has substantial discretion in the review and approval process and may refuse to accept for filing any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional nonclinical, clinical or other studies. Foreign regulatory authorities have differing requirements for approval of drugs with which we must comply with prior to marketing. Obtaining marketing approval for marketing of a product candidate in one country does not ensure that we will be able to obtain marketing approval in other countries, but the failure to obtain marketing approval in one jurisdiction could negatively affect our ability to obtain marketing approval in other jurisdictions. The FDA or any foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates or require us to conduct additional nonclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for many reasons, including:

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are successfully commercialized. The lengthy review process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we eventually receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, often referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, and the FDA may require the implementation of an REMS which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency also may approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agency may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

61

A fast track designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We have received fast track designation for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and acute pyelonephritis, as well as fast track designation for SPR720 for treatment of adult patients with NTM-PD, and we may seek fast track designation for one or more of our other product candidates in the future. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, a drug sponsor may apply for fast track designation by the FDA for the particular indication under study. If fast track designation is obtained, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information. If we seek fast track designation for a product candidate, we may not receive it from the FDA. However, even if we receive fast track designation, fast track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with fast track designation compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

In March 2020, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for SPR720. We may seek orphan drug designation for certain of our other product candidates. We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug designations for any of our other product candidates, and we may be unable to take advantage of the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan product if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States, but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. There can be no assurance that the FDA will grant orphan designation for any indication for which we apply.

In the United States, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product candidate that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, it is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including an NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.

Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for SPR720 and may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates in the future, there is no assurance that we will be the first to obtain marketing approval for NTM infection or for any particular rare indication. Further, even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for SPR720, or even if we obtain orphan drug designation for other product candidates, such designation may not effectively protect us from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition and the same drug can be approved for different conditions and potentially used off-label in the orphan indication. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a competing drug for the same condition for several reasons, including, if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer or more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug, nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

If approved for commercial marketing in the United States, our lead product candidate tebipenem HBr and our other product candidates may face generic competition sooner than anticipated.

Even if we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate, it may face competition from generic products earlier or more aggressively than anticipated, depending upon how well our future products perform in the United States prescription drug market. In addition to creating the 505(b)(2) NDA pathway, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved for marketing under the NDA provisions of the statute pursuant to abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs. An ANDA relies on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a previously approved reference listed drug, or RLD, and must demonstrate to the FDA that the generic drug product is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug and also that it is “bioequivalent” to the RLD. The FDA is prohibited by statute from approving an ANDA when certain marketing or data exclusivity protections apply to the RLD.

62

If the FDA approves our future NDA for tebipenem HBr for the treatment of cUTI we expect that it will be designated by the agency as an RLD and that it will be eligible for five-year new chemical entity exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman provisions of the FDCA. This exclusivity period would block FDA from approving either a subsequent ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA that references our future NDA, if approved. The QIDP designation granted by FDA to this drug product and indication also make it eligible for a further five-year extension of that Hatch-Waxman exclusivity. We cannot predict the interest of potential generic competitors in the future market for such an approved treatment for cUTI, whether someone will attempt to invalidate our period of exclusivity or otherwise force the FDA to take other actions, or how quickly others may seek to come to market with competing products after the applicable exclusivity period ends. Future product candidates may also receive marketing exclusivity under the FDCA after approval that may similarly be subject to challenge or uncertainty.

If we are unable to obtain marketing approval in international jurisdictions, we will not be able to market our product candidates abroad.

In order to market and sell tebipenem HBr or our other product candidates in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. The time required to obtain approval from regulatory authorities in other countries may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis or at all.

If we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continuing regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, when and if approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, advertising, promotion, record keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. For example, approved products, manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products.

In addition, even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed, may be subject to significant conditions of approval or may impose requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure that drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling and regulatory requirements. The FDA also imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not restrict the marketing of our products only to their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing.

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, it may impose restrictions on that product or us. In addition, if any product fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

63

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

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers will expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval and reimbursement. These laws and regulations include, for example, the false claims and anti-kickback statutes and regulations. At such time as we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval and reimbursement, it is possible that our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of these laws and regulations. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

64

We will be required to spend substantial time and money to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations. Even then, governmental authorities may conclude that our business practices, including arrangements we may have with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom may receive stock options as compensation for services provided, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If governmental authorities find that our operations violate any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, imprisonment, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and we may be required to curtail or restructure our operations. Moreover, we expect that there will continue to be federal and state laws and regulations, proposed and implemented, that could affect our operations and business. For example, in November 2020, DHHS finalized significant changes to the regulations implementing the Anti-Kickback Statute, as well as the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) and the civil monetary penalty rules regarding beneficiary inducements, with the goal of offering the healthcare industry more flexibility and reducing the regulatory burden associated with those fraud and abuse laws, particularly with respect to value-based arrangements among industry participants. The extent to which future legislation or regulations, if any, relating to healthcare fraud and abuse laws or enforcement, may be enacted or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business remains uncertain.

Recently enacted and future policies and legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the reimbursement made for any product candidate for which we receive marketing approval.

The pricing and reimbursement environment may become more challenging due to, among other reasons, policies advanced by the new presidential administration, federal agencies, new healthcare legislation passed by the United States Congress or fiscal challenges faced by all levels of government health administration authorities. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and foreign countries, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access to healthcare. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals. Resulting legislative, administrative, or policy changes from payors may reduce payments for any products for which we obtain marketing approval and could affect future revenues.

65

The ACA became law in the United States in March 2010 with the goals of broadening access to health insurance, reducing or constraining the growth of healthcare spending, enhancing remedies against fraud and abuse, adding new transparency requirements for the health care and health insurance industries and imposing additional health policy reforms. Provisions of ACA may negatively affect our future revenues. For example, the ACA requires, among other things, that annual fees be paid by manufacturers for certain branded prescription drugs, that manufacturers participate in a discount program for certain outpatient drugs under Medicare Part D, and that manufacturers provide increased rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program for outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid recipients. The ACA also addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for line extensions and expands oversight and support for the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research of services and products.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and as a result certain sections of the ACA have not been fully implemented or effectively repealed. The uncertainty around the future of the ACA, and in particular the impact to reimbursement levels, may lead to uncertainty or delay in the purchasing decisions of our customers, which may in turn negatively impact our product sales. If there are not adequate reimbursement levels, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Beginning on April 1, 2013, Medicare payments for all items and services under Part A and B, including drugs and biologicals, and most payments to plans under Medicare Part D were reduced by 2%, or automatic spending reductions, required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, or BCA, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The BCA requires sequestration for most federal programs, excluding Medicaid, Social Security, and certain other programs. The BCA caps the cuts to Medicare payments for items and services and payments to Part D plans at 2%. Subsequent legislation extended the 2% reduction, on average, to 2025. As long as these cuts remain in effect, they could adversely affect payment for our product candidates. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020 and was designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030, in order to offset the added expense of the 2020 cancellation. The 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act was subsequently signed into law on December 27, 2020 and extends the CARES Act suspension period to March 31, 2021.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. There have been several United States Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers, or PBMs, and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the effect of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the United States 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 testing and other requirements.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services. Moreover, the Biden Administration, including his nominee for Secretary of DHHS, has indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority, but we do not yet know what steps the administration will take or whether such steps will be successful.

66

If we successfully commercialize one of our product candidates, failure to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under United States governmental pricing programs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program if and when we successfully commercialize a product candidate, we will be required to report certain pricing information for our product to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid and Medicare programs. We may also be required to report pricing information to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. If we become subject to these reporting requirements, we will be liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data, for failure to report pricing data in a timely manner, and for overcharging government payers, which can result in civil monetary penalties under the Medicaid statute, the federal civil False Claims Act, and other laws and regulations.

Additionally, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive healthcare provisions and amendments to existing laws, which includes a requirement that all manufacturers of drug products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price, or ASP, to DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties.  

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, contract research organizations, consultants or vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, contract research organizations, consultants or vendors may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: FDA regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to the FDA; manufacturing standards; federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Specifically, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees and other third parties, 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. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished potential profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent our product candidates from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business relies, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, 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 the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the United States government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly affect the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

67

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and public health emergency declaration in the United States, on March 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities and products. On March 18, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities and provided guidance regarding the conduct of clinical trials, which has been updated periodically since that time with common questions and answers. As of January 29, 2021, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission-critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. As of October 2020, Utilizing a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct such inspections based on data about the virus’s trajectory in a given state and locality and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments, FDA is either continuing to, on a case-by-case basis, conduct only mission-critical inspections, or, where possible to do so safely, resuming prioritized domestic inspections, which generally include pre-approval inspections. Foreign pre-approval inspections that are not deemed mission-critical remain postponed, while those deemed mission-critical will be considered for inspection on a case-by-case basis. FDA will use similar data to inform resumption of prioritized operations abroad as it becomes feasible and advisable to do so, and it has recently resumed inspections in China and plans to also resume such activities in India as soon as possible. The FDA may not be able to maintain this pace and delays or setbacks are possible in the future.

Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for NDA approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. Additionally, regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown recurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

If a prolonged government shutdown or slowdown occurs, it could significantly affect the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain our chief executive officer and other key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. We are highly dependent on the development, regulatory, commercialization and business development expertise of Ankit Mahadevia, M.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have formal employment agreements with our executive officers, these agreements do not prevent them from terminating their employment with us at any time.

If we lose one or more of our executive officers or key employees, our ability to implement our business strategy successfully could be seriously harmed. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize product candidates successfully. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these additional key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be engaged by entities other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates will be limited.

68

We expect to grow our organization, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of product candidate development, regulatory affairs and sales, marketing and distribution. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities to devote time to managing these growth activities. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our inability to effectively manage the expansion of our operations may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our potential ability to generate revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

If foreign approvals are obtained, we will be subject to additional risks in conducting business in international markets.

Even if we are able to obtain approval for commercialization of a product candidate in a foreign country, we will be subject to additional risks related to international business operations, including:

These and other risks may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or sustain revenue from international markets.

We may engage in acquisitions that could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders or reduce our financial resources.

In the future, we may enter into transactions to acquire other businesses, products or technologies. If we do identify suitable candidates, we may not be able to make such acquisitions on favorable terms, or at all. Any acquisitions we make may not strengthen our competitive position, and these transactions may be viewed negatively by investors. We may decide to incur debt in connection with an acquisition or issue our common stock or other equity securities to the stockholders of the acquired company, which would reduce the percentage ownership of our existing stockholders. We could incur losses resulting from undiscovered liabilities of the acquired business that are not covered by the indemnification we may obtain from the seller. In addition, we may not be able to successfully integrate the acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business in an effective, timely and nondisruptive manner. Acquisitions may also divert management attention from day-to-day responsibilities, increase our expenses and reduce our cash available for operations and other uses. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future acquisitions or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

69

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for our stockholders.

Our stock price may be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their shares at or above the price they paid for their shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

In addition, the stock market has experienced significant volatility, particularly with respect to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks. The volatility of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks often does not relate to the operating performance of the companies represented by the stock. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, and could also require us to make substantial payments to satisfy judgments or to settle litigation.

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

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If few analysts provide coverage of us, the trading price of our stock would likely decline. If one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade our stock or change their opinion of our stock, our share price would likely decline. In addition, if one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

70

We can issue and have issued shares of preferred stock, which may adversely affect the rights of holders of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes us to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock with designations, rights and preferences determined from time-to-time by our board of directors. Accordingly, our board of directors is empowered, without stockholder approval, to issue preferred stock with dividend, liquidation, conversion, voting or other rights superior to those of holders of our common stock. For example, an issuance of shares of preferred stock could:

We have in the past issued, and we may at any time in the future issue, shares of preferred stock. In connection with our July 2018 public offering, we issued 2,220 shares of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series A Preferred Stock, to certain affiliates of Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P., or BVF, each share of which is convertible into 1,000 shares of our common stock, subject to certain ownership restrictions. In November 2018, we entered into an exchange agreement with BVF to exchange 1,000,000 shares of our common stock previously held by BVF for 1,000 shares of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, or Series B Preferred Stock, each share of which is convertible into 1,000 shares of our common stock, subject to certain ownership restrictions. In June 2019, BVF converted 500 shares of Series A Preferred Stock into 500,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to BVF’s rights under the certificate of designation for such Series A Preferred Stock. In December 2020, BVF converted the remaining 1,720 shares of Series A Preferred Stock into 1,720,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to BVF’s rights under the certificate of designation for such Series A Preferred Stock. In connection with our rights offering, which we launched in February 2020 and closed in early March 2020, we issued 2,287 shares of our Series C Preferred Stock to BVF. In September 2020, in connection with our underwritten public offering, we issued 3,215,000 shares of our Series D Preferred Stock to BVF. If BVF or any other future holders of our shares of preferred stock convert their shares into common stock, existing holders of our common stock will experience dilution.

We have broad discretion in the use of our cash reserves and may not use them effectively.

Our management will have broad discretion in the application of our cash reserves and could spend these funds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common stock. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, cause the price of our common stock to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest our cash reserves in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, and may remain an emerging growth company for up to five years. We would cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the completion of our initial public offering, which is December 31, 2022; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC which means the first day of the year following the first year in which the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of June 30th. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or Sarbanes-Oxley, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption and we will therefore be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result, changes in rules of United States generally accepted accounting principles or their interpretation, the adoption of new guidance or the application of existing guidance to changes in our business could significantly affect our financial position and results of operations.

71

We are subject to Section 404 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, and the related rules of the SEC, which generally require our management and independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Beginning with our next annual report that we will be required to file with the SEC, Section 404 requires an annual management assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. However, for so long as we remain an emerging growth company as defined in the JOBS Act, or a "smaller reporting company" (SRC) and non-accelerated filer, we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404. Once we are no longer an emerging growth company and otherwise do not meet the definition of a SRC and non-accelerated filer or, if prior to such date, we opt to no longer take advantage of the applicable exemption, we will be required to include an opinion from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. We could qualify as a SRC if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is below $250 million (or $700 million if our annual revenue is less than $100 million) as of June 30 in any given year.

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

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. Sarbanes-Oxley, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Select Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have increased our legal and financial compliance costs and have made some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations have made it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, which could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors. These rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

Failure to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley in the future could have a material adverse effect on our ability to produce accurate financial statements and on our stock price.

Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley requires us, on an annual basis, to review and evaluate our internal controls. To maintain compliance with Section 404, we are required to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. We will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, continue to engage outside consultants and follow a detailed work plan to continue to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market in the near future, which could cause the market price of our common stock to decline significantly, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares of common stock intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Our outstanding shares of common stock may be freely sold in the public market at any time to the extent permitted by Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, or to the extent that such shares have already been registered under the Securities Act and are held by non-affiliates of ours. Moreover, holders of a substantial number of shares of our common stock have rights, subject to conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We also have registered all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans or that are issuable upon exercise of outstanding options. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance and once vested, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates. If any of these additional shares are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline.

We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, stockholders must rely on capital appreciation, if any, for any return on their investment.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the operation, development and growth of our business. To the extent that we enter into any future debt agreements, the terms of such agreements may also preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

72

Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders maintain the ability to control all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

As of December 31, 2020, our executive officers and directors, combined with our stockholders who as of such date owned more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially own shares representing approximately 45% of our capital stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of ownership control may:

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that our stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or the DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. This could discourage, delay or prevent someone from acquiring us or merging with us, whether or not it is desired by, or beneficial to, our stockholders.

73

In addition, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for: any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or our amended and restated bylaws; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This exclusive forum provision does not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act. It could apply, however, to a suit that falls within one or more of the categories enumerated in the exclusive forum provision and asserts claims under the Securities Act, inasmuch as Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rule and regulations thereunder. There is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such provision with respect to claims under the Securities Act, and our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provisions contained in our restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Provisions in our charter and other provisions of Delaware law could limit the price that investors are willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Our headquarters are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where we lease approximately 23,400 square feet of office space. Our lease extends through July 2027. We believe that our existing facilities will be sufficient to meet our current needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are not party to any material legal proceedings.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

74

PART II

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

Market Information

Our common stock has been publicly traded on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “SPRO” since the initial public offering of our common stock on November 2, 2017. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock.

Holders of Record

As of March 8, 2021, we had approximately nine stockholders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock since our inception. We currently intend to retain all available funds and future earnings, if any, for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare and pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on various factors, including applicable laws, our results of operations, our financial condition, our capital requirements, general business conditions, our future prospects and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. Additionally, our ability to pay dividends on our capital stock could be limited by terms and covenants of any future indebtedness.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

None.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Not applicable.

75

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

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a multi-asset, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on identifying, developing and commercializing treatments in high unmet need areas involving MDR bacterial infections and rare diseases. Our most advanced product candidate, tebipenem HBr, is designed to be the first broad-spectrum oral carbapenem-class antibiotic for use in adults to treat MDR Gram-negative infections. Treatment with effective orally administrable antibiotics may prevent hospitalizations for serious infections and enable earlier, more convenient and cost-effective treatment of patients after hospitalization. We are also developing SPR720, a novel oral antibiotic designed for the treatment of a rare, orphan disease caused by non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary infections, or NTM disease. In addition, we have a Potentiator technology, which includes an IV-administered product candidate, SPR206, being developed to treat MDR Gram-negative infections in the hospital. We believe that our novel product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, would have a meaningful patient impact and significant commercial applications for the treatment of MDR infections in both the community and hospital settings. Since our inception in 2013, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and developing product and technology rights, building our intellectual property portfolio and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales.

We have experienced net losses and significant cash outflows from cash used in operating activities since our inception.  Our ability to generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $277.7 million, and cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $126.9 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for at least the next several years. Based on our current plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, together with the committed funding from our existing BARDA contract and other non-dilutive funding commitments, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2022, including through the submission of the NDA for tebipenem HBr. This timeline is subject to uncertainty as to the timing of future expenditures. We have developed plans to mitigate this risk, which primarily consist of raising additional capital through some combination of equity or debt financings, potential new collaborations, additional grant funding and/or reducing cash expenditures. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned clinical trials and research stage programs. The actions necessary to reduce spending under this plan at a level that mitigates the factors described above is not considered probable, as defined in the accounting standards and therefore, the full extent to which management may extend our funds through these actions may not be considered in management’s assessment of our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, management has concluded that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We will not generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. If we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates and do not enter into a commercialization partnership, we expect to incur significant expenses related to developing our internal commercialization capability to support product sales, marketing and distribution. Further, we expect to incur additional costs associated with our continued operation as a public company.

As a result, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, government funding arrangements, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. We may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other agreements or arrangements when needed on favorable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise capital or enter into such agreements as, and when, needed, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates.

76

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we are able to generate product sales, we may not become profitable. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce or terminate our operations.

Recent Developments

Business Update regarding COVID-19

The spread of SARS-CoV-2, and the resulting disease COVID-19 in 2020, has caused an economic downturn on a global scale, as well as widespread business disruptions and significant volatility in the financial markets. In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. In response to the pandemic, we implemented and have maintained a remote working policy for all employees to aid the global containment effort.

Update on Phase 2a Clinical Trial

On February 5, 2021, we announced that the FDA informed us that a clinical hold had been placed on our Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720, following our notification to the FDA of our decision to pause dosing in our ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720 as a precautionary measure related to events in our ongoing animal toxicology study of SPR720. The decision to implement the pause was made based on a recommendation from the Company’s Safety Review Board, or SRB, following review of data from an ongoing toxicology study of SPR720 in adult non-human primates in which mortalities with inconclusive causality to treatment were observed.

The animal study is being conducted to assess the potential toxicity of SPR720. A concurrent study of SPR720 in rats is proceeding uneventfully. These studies are meant to support longer-term treatment with SPR720 beyond the 28 days currently supported by IND-enabling toxicology studies. No serious adverse events have been observed in any human study participants.

Subsequent to receiving verbal notification from the FDA of the clinical hold, we received a formal clinical hold letter in which the FDA has requested additional information from the non-human primate trial, including a study report. We have decided to discontinue the Phase 2a clinical trial at this time to best facilitate future potential adjustments to the protocol based on FDA feedback and to avoid incurring costs associated with the trial while on clinical hold. We are continuing to work with the FDA to evaluate the findings and determine the further development pathway for the SPR720 clinical program.

Components of Our Results of Operations

Grant Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the foreseeable future. If our development efforts for our product candidates are successful and result in regulatory approval, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales. We cannot predict if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of our product candidates. We may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

To date, the majority of our revenue has been derived from government awards. We expect that our revenue for the next few years will be derived primarily from payments under our government awards that we have currently entered into and that we may enter into in the future.

Collaboration Revenue

Collaboration revenue relates to our agreement with Everest.

77

Operating Expenses

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for our research activities, including our drug discovery efforts, and the development of our product candidates, which include:

We have recorded research and development expenses conducted by our Australian subsidiary net of a 43.5% research and development tax incentive we expect to receive for qualified expenses from the Australian government.

In June 2019, we entered into a collaboration with Gates MRI, a nonprofit research institution wholly owned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop SPR720 for the treatment of lung infections caused by Mtb. In furtherance of the Gates MRI’s charitable purposes, we also granted the Gates MRI a no cost, exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize SPR720 for the treatment of TB in low- and middle- income countries. Gates MRI will conduct and fund preclinical and clinical studies for the development of SPR720 against TB and fund certain agreed upon collaborative research activities performed by us. Due to our assessment that we do not have a vendor/customer relationship with the Gates MRI, we recognize the funding received under the agreement as a reduction to the research and development expenses as the related expenses are incurred.

We expense research and development costs as incurred. Nonrefundable advance payments we make for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities are recorded as prepaid expenses. The prepaid amounts are expensed as the related goods are delivered or the services are performed.

Our direct research and development expenses are tracked on a program-by-program basis and consist primarily of external costs, such as fees paid to consultants, contractors, CMOs and CROs in connection with our preclinical and clinical development activities. License fees and other costs incurred after a product candidate has been designated and that are directly related to the product candidate are included in direct research and development expenses for that program. License fees and other costs incurred prior to designating a product candidate are included in early stage research programs. We do not allocate employee costs, costs associated with our preclinical programs or facility expenses, including depreciation or other indirect costs, to specific product development programs because these costs are deployed across multiple product development programs and, as such, are not separately classified.

Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials.

At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the preclinical and clinical development of any of our product candidates. The successful development and commercialization of our product candidates is highly uncertain. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties, including the following:

78

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of any of our product candidates would significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. We may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs, including share-based compensation, for personnel in executive, finance and administrative functions. General and administrative expenses also include direct and allocated facility-related costs as well as professional fees for legal, patent, consulting, investor and public relations, accounting and audit services. We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the foreseeable future as we increase our headcount to support our continued research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates. We also anticipate that we will incur increased accounting, audit, legal, regulatory, compliance, infrastructure, and director and officer insurance costs as well as investor and public relations expenses associated with our continued operation as a public company.

Other Income (Expense)

Anti-Dilution Rights. In connection with the issuance of non-controlling interests in certain of our subsidiaries, specifically Spero Gyrase, Inc., we granted the minority investors the right to maintain ownership interests at no additional cost, subject to a maximum ownership percentage, which rights we refer to collectively as anti-dilution rights. We classified the anti-dilution rights as derivative liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet that we remeasured to fair value at each reporting date, and we recognized changes in the fair value of the derivative liabilities associated with the anti-dilution rights as a component of other income (expense) in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. In November 2019, we repurchased 100% of the minority investor’s outstanding shares in Spero Gyrase, Inc. at a price of $0.001 per share. As a result, as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, there are no anti-dilution rights outstanding. Additionally, effective as of January 1, 2020, we merged Spero Gyrase, Inc. with and into Spero, Therapeutics, Inc.

Interest Income

Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash equivalents, which are primarily invested in money market accounts, as well as interest earned on our investments in marketable securities that we held during the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. 

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net, consists of insignificant amounts of miscellaneous income, as well as realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency-denominated cash balances, vendor payables and receivables from the Australian research and development tax incentive.

Income Taxes

Since our inception, we have not recorded any income tax benefits for the net losses we have incurred in each year or for our earned research and development tax credits, as we believe, based upon the weight of available evidence, that it is more likely than not that all of our net operating loss carryforwards and tax credits will not be realized. As of December 31, 2020, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $228.1 million and $226.2 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future income tax liabilities.  The federal NOLs of $73.0 million will expire at various dates from 2033 to 2037 and approximately $155.1 million can be carried forward indefinitely.  The state NOLs begin to expire in 2033 and will expire at various dates through 2039. In addition, as of December 31, 2020, we had foreign net operating loss carryforwards of $10.7 million, which may be available to offset future income tax liabilities and do not expire. As of December 31, 2020, we also had federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $6.7 million and $1.4 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2033 and 2028, respectively. We have recorded a full valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets at each balance sheet date.

79

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or GAAP. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures requires us to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the reported amount of assets, liabilities, revenue, costs and expenses, and related disclosures. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events 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 values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We believe that the following accounting policies are those most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our financial statements.

Funding Received from Government Contracts and Collaborations

Since our inception, we have been able to obtain partial funding for our research and development activities from government contracts, government tax incentives and a collaboration arrangement. The classification within our statement of operations and comprehensive loss of the funding received under these arrangements is subject to management judgment based on the nature of the arrangements we enter into, the source of the funding and whether the funding is considered central to our business operations.

Government Contracts

We generate revenue from government contracts that reimburse us for certain allowable costs for funded projects. For contracts with government agencies, when we have concluded that we are the principal in conducting the research and development expenses and where the funding arrangement is considered central to our ongoing operations, we classify the recognized funding received as revenue. Revenue from government grants is recognized as the qualifying expenses related to the contracts are incurred, provided that there is reasonable assurance of recoverability. Revenue recognized upon incurring qualifying expenses in advance of receipt of funding is recorded as unbilled receivables, a component of prepaid expenses and other current assets, in the consolidated balance sheet.

We recognize funding received from BARDA, the DoD and the NIAID of the NIH, as revenue, rather than as a reduction of research and development expenses, because we are the principal in conducting the research and development activities and these contracts are central to our ongoing operations. We recognize revenue only after the qualifying expenses related to the contracts have been incurred, we are reasonably assured that the expenses will be reimbursed and the revenue is collectible. We record revenue recognized upon incurring qualifying expenses in advance of billing as unbilled revenue, which is included in other receivables in our consolidated balance sheet. The related costs incurred by us are included in research and development expense in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

Collaboration Agreements

For collaboration agreements with a third party, to determine the appropriate statement of operations classification of the recognized funding, we first assess whether the collaboration arrangement is within the scope of the accounting guidance for collaboration arrangements. If it is, we evaluate the collaborative arrangement for proper classification in the statement of operations based on the nature of the underlying activity and we assess the payments to and from the collaborative partner. If the payments to and from the collaborative partner are not within the scope of other authoritative accounting guidance, we base the statement of operations classification for the payments received on a reasonable, rational analogy to authoritative accounting guidance, applied in a consistent manner. Conversely, if the collaboration arrangement is not within the scope of accounting guidance for collaboration arrangements, we assess whether the collaboration arrangement represents a vendor/customer relationship. If the collaborative arrangement does not represent a vendor/customer relationship, we then classify the funding payments received in the statement of operations and comprehensive loss as a reduction of the related expense that is incurred.

In June 2019, we entered into a collaboration agreement with the Gates MRI and concluded that the agreement is within the scope of the accounting guidance for collaboration arrangements. Due to the cost-funded nature of the payments and our assessment that we do not have a vendor/customer relationship with the Gates MRI, we will recognize the funding received under the agreement as a reduction to research and development expense as we incur the related expenses.

80

Accrued Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued research and development expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our applicable personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of actual costs. The majority of our service providers invoice us in arrears for services performed, on a pre-determined schedule or when contractual milestones are met; however, some require advance payments. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in the consolidated financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of the estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. Examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses include fees paid to:

We base our expenses related to preclinical studies and clinical trials on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to quotes and contracts with multiple research institutions and CROs that conduct and manage preclinical studies and clinical trials on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the expense. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from the estimate, we adjust the accrual or prepaid expense accordingly. Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in reporting amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. To date, there have not been any material adjustments to our prior estimates of accrued research and development expenses.

Share-Based Compensation

We measure all share-based awards granted to employees and directors based on the fair value on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, and we recognize compensation expense of those awards over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the respective award. Generally, we issue awards with only service-based vesting conditions and record the expense for these awards using the straight-line method. The Black-Scholes option-pricing model uses as inputs the fair value of our common stock and assumptions we make for the volatility of our common stock, the expected term of our common stock options and performance-based awards, the risk-free interest rate for a period that approximates the expected term of our common stock options and performance-based awards, and our expected dividend yield.

Results of Operations

Our financial statements have been presented on the basis that we are a going concern, which contemplates the realization of revenues and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. We have incurred losses from the inception of our operations. These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

81

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2020 and 2019

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019:

Grant Revenue

Grant revenue recognized during 2020 and 2019 consisted of the reimbursement of qualifying expenses incurred in connection with our various government awards. The decrease in revenue during 2020 was primarily due to decreased funding received under our BARDA contract for tebipenem HBr.

Collaboration Revenue

During the years December 31, 2020 and 2019, we recognized $0.3 million and $4.7 million of revenue, respectively, related to our agreement with Everest, consisting of the performance of research and development services.

Research and Development Expenses

82

Direct costs related to our tebipenem HBr program decreased by $1.5 million during 2020 compared to 2019 primarily due to the completion of significant activities and related costs of the Phase 3 clinical trial in 2020. We initiated enrollment for the phase 3 clinical trial in the first quarter of 2019, completed enrollment in the second quarter of 2020 and announced results of topline data in September 2020. This decrease was partially offset by increases in expenses related to formulation development, manufacturing process and manufacturing of clinical trial material in 2020 compared to 2019. We expect to continue to incur direct costs related to tebipenem HBr as we finalize activities in the Phase 3 clinical trial and incur expenses related to a potential NDA filing for tebipenem HBr.

Direct costs related to our SPR720 program increased by $0.1 million during 2020 compared to 2019, primarily due to increased expenses related to the initiation of our Phase 2a clinical trial, offset by decreased costs related to the formulation development, manufacturing process and manufacturing of clinical trial material. Direct costs related to our SPR720 program during the year ended December 31, 2020 reflect a $2.1 million reduction to expense related to activities funded by Gates MRI, compared to $1.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2019. On February 5, 2021, we announced that the FDA informed us that a clinical hold had been placed on our Phase 2a clinical trial of SPR720, which is further described elsewhere in this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K under the heading “Recent Developments – Update on Phase 2a Clinical Trial.”

Direct costs related to our Potentiator product candidates include costs related to our SPR206 and SPR741 programs. Direct costs related to our SPR206 program decreased by $2.0 million during 2020, primarily due to higher costs incurred in the prior year related to the Phase 1 trial. Direct costs related to our SPR741 program were immaterial for both the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. In January 2020, we decided to proceed with SPR206 as the lead Potentiator product candidate and discontinue development of SPR741.

During 2020 and 2019, research and development expenses conducted by our Australian subsidiary were recorded net of a 43.5% research and development tax incentive for qualified expenses from the Australian government, resulting in a receivable of $1.2 million.

The increase in personnel-related costs included in unallocated expenses of $4.0 million was primarily due to an increase in research and development headcount and a $0.6 million increase in share-based compensation.

The increase in facility-related and other costs was primarily due to the increased costs of supporting a larger research and development staff.

General and Administrative Expenses

The increase in personnel-related costs of $2.6 million was primarily a result of an increase in headcount in our general and administrative function. Personnel-related costs for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 included share-based compensation expense of $2.7 million and $2.2 million, respectively.

The increase in professional and consultant fees of $2.4 million primarily related to increased commercial operations expenses, as well as increased IT, HR and Finance contractor and consulting expenses related to supporting the growth in our business.

The increase in facility-related and other costs was primarily due to the increased costs of supporting a larger number of general and administrative personnel.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income, net was $0.8 million during 2020, compared to $2.3 million during 2019. Other income, net in the year ended December 31, 2020 was primarily comprised of unrealized foreign currency gains, offsetting decreased interest income due to falling interest rates. In comparison, other income, net, for the year ended December 31, 2019 consisted of other income of $2.1 million, which was primarily related to interest income on our invested cash balances and marketable securities, as well as $0.2 million in connection with the repurchase of Vaxart Inc.’s outstanding shares in Spero Gyrase, Inc. at a price of $0.001 per share.

83

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. We have recognized limited revenue to date from funding arrangements with the DoD, NIAID, CARB-X and BARDA and our license agreement with Everest. We have not yet commercialized any of our product candidates and we do not expect to generate revenue from sales of any product candidates for several years, if at all. To date, we have funded our operations with proceeds from the sales of preferred units and bridge units, payments received under license and collaboration agreements and funding from government contracts, and from multiple equity financings of our common and preferred stock. As of December 31, 2020, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $126.9 million.

On September 15, 2020, we completed an underwritten public offering of an aggregate of 4,785,000 shares of our common stock and 3,215,000 shares of our Series D Preferred Stock. The price to the public in the offering was $10.00 per share with respect to the common stock and the Series D Preferred Stock. In addition, under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement, we granted the underwriters an option, exercisable for 30 days, to purchase up to 1,200,000 additional shares of common stock.

The shares of Series D Preferred Stock are convertible on a one-to-one basis into shares of common stock at any time at the option of the holder, provided that the holder will be prohibited from converting the Series D Preferred Stock into shares of common stock if, as a result of such conversion, the holder, together with its affiliates, would own more than 9.99% of the total number of shares of common stock then issued and outstanding, subject to certain exceptions. In the event of the Company’s liquidation, dissolution, or winding up, holders of Series D Preferred Stock will receive a payment equal to $0.001 per share of Series D Preferred Stock before any proceeds are distributed to the holders of common stock and equal to any distributions to the holders of Series A Preferred Stock, Series B Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock. Shares of Series D Preferred Stock will generally have no voting rights, except as required by law and except that the consent of holders of a majority of the then outstanding Series D Preferred Stock will be required to amend the terms of the Series D Preferred Stock. As such, we have classified the Series D Convertible Preferred Stock within permanent equity in its consolidated balance sheet.

The offering closed on September 15, 2020 with an aggregate public offering price of $80.0 million. Aggregate net proceeds from the offering were $74.7 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

In addition, pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, on October 1, 2020, we issued and sold 1,200,000 shares of common stock at the price of $10.00 per share pursuant to the underwriters’ exercise of their option to purchase additional shares of common stock, resulting in additional net proceeds of approximately $11.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions.

On February 11, 2020, the Company announced a rights offering pursuant to which it distributed to holders of its common stock and Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock, at no charge, non-transferable subscription rights to purchase shares of our common stock and Series C Preferred Stock, with an aggregate offering value of $30.0 million. For each share of common stock (including shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of our outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock) owned by holders of record as of 5:00 p.m., New York time, on February 10, 2020, such holders received 0.152 rights to purchase shares of our common stock (subject to the aggregate offering threshold and certain ownership limitations). Each whole right allowed holders to subscribe for one share of common stock at the subscription price equal to $9.00 per whole share (or an equivalent number of shares of Series C Preferred Stock). The total number of subscription rights issued to each stockholder was rounded down to the nearest whole number.

Any participant in the rights offering that, following exercise of such participant’s subscription right, would be or become a holder of greater than 9.99% of the outstanding number of shares of the Company’s common stock following the offering could elect to instead purchase Series C Preferred Stock at a purchase price of $9,000 per share (ratably adjusted for fractional shares), and any such holder so electing had a right to purchase one one-thousandth of a share of Series C Preferred Stock for each share of common stock it had a right to purchase under the subscription rights. Each share of Series C Preferred Stock is convertible into 1,000 shares of our common stock at the election of the holder, subject to beneficial ownership conversion limits applicable to the Series C Preferred Stock. The Series C Preferred Stock generally have no voting rights, except as required by law, and participate pari passu (on an as-converted basis) with any distribution of proceeds to holders of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock, in the event of the Company’s liquidation, dissolution or winding up or the payment of a dividend on the common stock.

At the closing of the rights offering on March 5, 2020, a total of 1,046,249 shares of our common stock and 2,287 shares of Series C Preferred Stock were issued for aggregate gross proceeds of $30.0 million. Issuance costs related to the offering were $0.5 million.

On December 3, 2018, we filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-228661) with the SEC, which was declared effective on December 11, 2018, and pursuant to which we registered for sale up to $200.0 million of any combination of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants, rights and/or units from time to time and at prices and on terms that we may determine, including up to $50.0 million of our common stock available for issuance pursuant to an “at-the-market” offering program sales agreement that we entered into with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co, or Cantor. Under the sales agreement, Cantor may sell shares of our common stock by any method permitted by law deemed to be an “at the market,” or ATM, offering as defined in Rule 415 of the Securities Act, subject to the terms of the sales agreement.

84

The prospectus underlying the “at-the-market” offering program was terminated on September 9, 2020 in connection with our underwritten public offering that was completed in September 2020. At such time, we had raised approximately $15.4 million in sales of our common stock under the “at-the-market” offering program, prior to deducting sales commissions, and had remaining available capacity of approximately $34.6 million. On November 13, 2020, we reinstated the “at-the-market” offering program with a capacity of up to $34 million by filing an updated prospectus.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, we sold 993,870 shares of our common stock under the “at-the-market” agreement at an average price of approximately $13.66 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $13.6 million prior to deducting sales commissions.

Concurrently with the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we entered into a new sales agreement with Cantor and will file a new universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3, including an “at-the-market” prospectus with the SEC, which is further described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under “Item 9B. Other Events.” Our existing sales agreement with Cantor will terminate automatically at such time as the SEC declares effective our new universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in ongoing volatility in financial markets. If our access to capital is restricted or associated borrowing costs increase as a result of developments in financial markets relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, our operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our sources and uses of cash for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019:

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $85.9 million, primarily resulting from our net loss of $78.3 million, adjusted for net non-cash items of $5.9 million (primarily stock-based compensation and depreciation and amortization expense). Net cash used in changes in our operating assets and liabilities was $(13.5) million and consisted primarily of a decrease of $12.1 million in accrued expenses and accounts payable, a $1.9 million increase in other assets and a $1.2 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets, partially offset by a $2.2 million net decrease in receivables related to our government awards.

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $50.0 million, primarily resulting from our net loss of $60.9 million, adjusted for net non-cash items of $4.1 million (primarily stock-based compensation and depreciation and amortization expense). Net cash provided by changes in our operating assets and liabilities was $6.8 million and consisted primarily of an increase of $13.8 million in accrued expenses and accounts payable and a $2.7 million decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets, offset by a $7.1 million increase in receivables related to our government awards and a $2.9 million increase in other assets.

Changes in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities, and prepaid expenses and other current assets in all periods were generally due to the advancement of our development programs and the timing of vendor invoicing and payments.

Investing Activities

Net cash provided by investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $10.5 million, primarily related to the maturities of marketable securities of $56.4 million, offset by purchases of marketable securities of $45.7 million.

Net cash provided by investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $29.5 million and consisted primarily of the net maturities of marketable securities, as well as $0.3 million in property and equipment purchases.

85

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $130.9 million, consisting primarily of proceeds of $116.5 million from the sale of common stock, Series C Preferred Stock and Series D Preferred Stock in our rights offering and underwritten public offering, net proceeds of $13.2 million from the sale of common stock under our “at-the-market” offering program sales agreement and proceeds of $2.2 million from the exercise of employee stock options, offset by the payment of offering expenses of approximately $1.0 million.

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $16.1 million, consisting primarily of net proceeds of $5.8 million from the sale of common stock under our “at-the-market” offering program sales agreement, proceeds of $10.0 million from the sale of common stock to Novo, both of which were offset by offering expenses of $0.2 million, as well as $0.5 million of proceeds from the exercise of employee stock options.

Funding Requirements

We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance our clinical programs and prepare for possible commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs associated with our continued operation as a public company. The timing and amount of our operating expenditures will depend largely on:

As of December 31, 2020, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $126.9 million. In accordance with Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), we are required to evaluate whether there are conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern from the issuance date of our financial statements. Based on our current plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, together with the committed funding from our existing BARDA contract and other non-dilutive funding commitments, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2022, including through the submission of the NDA for tebipenem HBr.

86

This timeline is subject to uncertainty as to the timing of future expenditures. We have developed plans to mitigate this risk, which primarily consist of raising additional capital through some combination of equity or debt financings, potential new collaborations, additional grant funding and/or reducing cash expenditures. If we are not able to secure adequate additional funding, we plan to make reductions in spending. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our planned clinical trials, research stage programs and commercial activities. The actions necessary to reduce spending under this plan at a level that mitigates the factors described above is not considered probable, as defined in the accounting standards and therefore, the full extent to which management may extend our funds through these actions may not be considered in management’s assessment of our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, management has concluded that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with research, development and commercialization of pharmaceutical product candidates, we are unable to estimate the exact amount of our working capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including those listed above.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, government funding, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making acquisitions or capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in ongoing volatility in financial markets. If our access to capital is restricted or associated borrowing costs increase as a result of developments in financial markets, including relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, our operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research, product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2020 and the effects that such obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flows in future periods:

As further described below, under various licensing and related agreements with third parties, we have agreed to make milestone payments and pay royalties to third parties. We have not included any contingent payment obligations, such as milestones or royalties, in the table above as the amount, timing and likelihood of such payments are not known.

Under our license agreement with Meiji, we are obligated (i) to make future milestone payments of up to $2.0 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones for tebipenem HBr, (ii) to pay royalties, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, of a low single-digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement and (iii) to pay to Meiji a low double-digit percentage of any sublicense fees received by us up to $7.5 million. During the fourth quarter of 2018 we paid Meiji approximately $1.6 million related to fixed assets which will be used in manufacturing related activities at Meiji. The equipment has been capitalized as property and equipment in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2020 and 2019.

Under an agreement we entered into with PBB, we are obligated to make milestone payments of up to $5.8 million upon the achievement of specified clinical milestones and a payment of £5.0 million ($6.8 million as of December 31, 2020) upon the achievement of a specified commercial milestone for SPR206. In addition, we have agreed to pay to PBB royalties, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, of a low single-digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement.

87

Under our agreement with Vertex, we are obligated to make future milestone payments of up to $80.2 million upon the achievement of specified clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones and to pay to Vertex tiered royalties, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, of a mid single-digit to low double-digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we paid Vertex $0.9 million related to the achievement of regulatory milestones for SPR720.

We enter into contracts in the normal course of business with CROs, CMOs and other third parties for clinical trials, preclinical research studies and testing, manufacturing and other services. These contracts are cancelable by us upon prior notice. Payments due upon cancellation consist only of payments for services provided or expenses incurred, including non-cancellable obligations of our service providers, up to the date of cancellation. These payments are not included in the table of contractual obligations and commitments above.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

Please refer to Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a description of recent accounting pronouncements applicable to our business.

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

As of December 31, 2020, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $126.9 million, consisting of cash, money market accounts, corporate bonds, commercial paper and United States government debt securities. The primary objectives of our investment activities are to preserve principal, provide liquidity and maximize income without significantly increasing risk. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest income sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of United States interest rates. If market interest rates were to increase immediately and uniformly by 50 basis points, from levels as of December 31, 2020, the net fair value of our interest sensitive marketable securities would hypothetically decline by $0.1 million. As we incur research expenses in foreign countries, we face exposure to movements in foreign currency exchange rates, primarily the Euro, British Pound and Australian dollar against the United States dollar. Historically, foreign currency fluctuations have not had a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

88

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

89

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Spero Therapeutics, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Spero Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, of convertible preferred shares and stockholders’ equity and of cash flows for the years then ended, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Substantial Doubt about the Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

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

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated 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 of these consolidated financial statements 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 consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our 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 consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

March 11, 2021  

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

90

SPERO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except unit, share and per share amounts)