vTv Therapeutics Inc. - Annual Report: 2017 (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, 2017

Or

For the transition period from            to           

Commission file number: 001-37524

vTv Therapeutics Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(336) 841-0300

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange 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 and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ⌧

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

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 if the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2017 (based on the closing sale price as reported on the NASDAQ) was $33,577,419.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the Registrant’s classes of common stock, as of February 23, 2018.

vTv THERAPEUTICS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO FORM 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED December 31, 2017

2

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the “Company”, the “Registrant”, “we” or “us” refer to vTv Therapeutics Inc., “vTv LLC” refers to vTv Therapeutics LLC, “vTvx Holdings I” or “TTP” refer to vTvx Holdings I LLC (formerly known as TransTech Pharma, LLC), “vTvx Holdings II” or “HPP” refer to vTvx Holdings II LLC (formerly known as High Point Pharmaceuticals, LLC) and “vTv Therapeutics Holdings” refers to vTv Therapeutics Holdings LLC. The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes that appear elsewhere in this report. In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates, assumptions and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this report under “Part I—Item 1A, Risk Factors.” Forward-looking statements include information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations, business strategies and operations, financing plans, potential growth opportunities, potential market opportunities, potential results of our drug development efforts or trials, and the effects of competition. Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts and can be identified by terms such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “projects,” “should,” “will,” “would” or similar expressions and the negatives of those terms. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, forward-looking statements represent our management’s plans, estimates, assumptions and beliefs only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future.

PART I

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of orally administered small molecule drug candidates to fill significant unmet medical needs. We have a powerful pipeline of clinical drug candidates, led by our programs for the treatment of mild Alzheimer’s disease (“AD”) and diabetes. Our drug candidate for the treatment of AD, azeliragon (TTP488), is an orally administered, small molecule antagonist targeting the receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (“RAGE”), for which we have successfully completed the enrollment of both sub-studies in a Phase 3 clinical trial (the “STEADFAST Study”) under a Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) agreed Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”). Our diabetes drug candidates include TTP399, an orally administered, liver-selective glucokinase activator (“GKA”), for which we have completed a Phase 2b clinical trial in type 2 diabetes (the “AGATA Study”) in August 2016, and TTP273, an orally administered, non-peptide agonist that targets the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (“GLP-1r”), for which we have completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in type 2 diabetes (the “LOGRA Study”) in December 2016. We have also initiated an adaptive Phase 1b/2 study to explore the effects of TTP399 in type 1 diabetics in partnership with JDRF International (“JDRF”).  We have two additional programs in various stages of preclinical and clinical development for the treatment of inflammatory disorders.

3

Our Pipeline

The following table summarizes our current leading drug candidates and their respective stages of development:

Each of our most advanced drug candidates is the subject of patent and patent applications for composition of matter and method of use in major markets worldwide. Our patents in the U.S. are expected to provide us with composition of matter protection through 2029 for azeliragon, 2030 for TTP399 and 2035 for TTP273, in each case, assuming we obtain the maximum possible extensions.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to leverage our powerful pipeline of orally administered, small molecule drug candidates to deliver novel, differentiated therapies to fill significant unmet medical needs. As key components of our strategy, we intend to:

4

Our Alzheimer’s Program – Azeliragon

Alzheimer’s Disease and the Role of RAGE in its Onset

AD is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually the ability to carry out simple tasks. Its symptoms include cognitive dysfunction, memory abnormalities, progressive impairment in activities of daily living and a host of behavioral and neuropsychiatric symptoms. The exact cause of AD is unknown; however, genetic and environmental factors are established contributors. Amyloid Beta (“Aβ”) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles of tau protein, and neuroinflammation in the brain are believed to be the main causes of the disease, leading to loss of neuronal connectivity in the brain.

RAGE is an immunoglobulin-like cell surface receptor that is overexpressed in brain tissues of patients with AD. We believe that RAGE is an important cellular cofactor that binds ligands that are implicated in multiple etiologies of AD, including Aβ transport into the brain, the phosphorylation of tau, chronic inflammation, vascular dysfunction, metabolic dysregulation and neurotoxicity. These effects are attenuated following antagonism of the RAGE receptor.

Post-mortem studies in AD patients reveal increased RAGE expression in neuronal, microglial and endothelial cells when compared to similar subjects without AD. Cells around senile plaques express higher levels of RAGE during disease progression. Furthermore, expressed levels of RAGE are correlated with the severity of the disease. The data observed in human AD patients is consistent with the multiple pre-clinical in-vitro and in-vivo animal models studied by third parties that show RAGE is overexpressed in brain tissue of AD subjects. Taken together, we believe that literature provides substantial support for RAGE inhibition as a validated and promising therapeutic approach in the treatment of AD.

Current Treatments of Alzheimer’s Disease and Their Limitations

Currently, there are only two classes of approved therapies for the treatment of symptoms of AD: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (“AChEIs”) and glutamatergic modulators. AChEIs are designed to slow the degradation of acetylcholine, helping to preserve neuronal communication and function temporarily, but do not slow or halt neuronal death. Glutamatergic modulators are designed to block

5

sustained, low-level activation of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (“NMDA”) receptor without inhibiting the normal function of the receptor in memory and cognition, providing temporary symptomatic relief.

The currently available treatments combat the symptoms of AD rather than the underlying cause, or etiology, and as a result, AD continues to progress in these patients despite treatment. Similarly, the use of antidepressants and antipsychotics are often prescribed off-label to treat the symptoms of severe AD when patients suffer from agitation, aggressive behaviors, psychosis and depression. Recent drug candidates under development include those focused on Aβ synthesis or clearance from the brain, the phosphorylation of tau protein, chronic inflammation, vascular dysfunction, metabolic dysregulation and neurotoxicity.

Our Solution: Azeliragon

Azeliragon is an orally administered, small molecule investigational drug candidate that has the potential to be among the first recently-approved FDA AD therapeutics due to its novel mechanism of action of inhibiting RAGE. Additionally, azeliragon has been awarded Fast Track designation by the FDA as a potential therapy to treat a serious condition and fill an unmet medical need. We have demonstrated that azeliragon is a potent and selective inhibitor of RAGE and, in an analysis of data collected in our Phase 2b clinical trial, azeliragon slowed the progression of cognitive decline in mild and mild-to-moderate AD patients. Azeliragon has the potential to offer a novel modality in AD therapeutics, and we are not aware of any other clinical-stage drugs targeting RAGE. Because currently approved treatments are focused on symptom relief, we believe that azeliragon represents a potential new approach for the treatment of AD. In addition, we believe that in order to successfully treat and combat the physiological progression of AD, an effective treatment must act on multiple causes, or etiologies, of the disease. Unlike development stage treatments that target a singular cause of AD, azeliragon is designed to inhibit RAGE, which affects multiple aspects of AD etiology, including Aβ transport into the brain, the phosphorylation of tau, chronic inflammation, vascular dysfunction, metabolic dysregulation and neurotoxicity.  To date, we have completed eight Phase 1 and three Phase 2 clinical trials of azeliragon.

Ongoing Phase 3 STEADFAST Study

We initiated our Phase 3 clinical trial, the STEADFAST Study, in April 2015 pursuant to an SPA with the FDA. The study is being conducted in the United States and certain English-speaking foreign countries under a single protocol and was designed to enroll 800 mild AD patients in total, divided equally across two independent 400-patient sub-studies, in which each subject receives either a 5 mg/day dose of azeliragon or placebo, randomized on a one-to-one basis, added to the standard of care. We have successfully completed the enrollment of both sub-studies.  The sub-studies are independently powered to demonstrate statistically significant differences in two co-primary endpoints at month 18. The STEADFAST Study is a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, 18-month trial in patients with mild AD, which is the population that showed greater benefit from azeliragon in an analysis of our Phase 2b trial with patients on standard of care of AChEIs and/or memantine. For the purposes of the STEADFAST Study, patients with a Mini-Mental State Examination (“MMSE”) score of 21 to 26 are considered to have mild AD. The STEADFAST Study, if successful, will serve as the basis for filing an NDA in the United States and may also serve as a pivotal trial for marketing applications in other jurisdictions. Patients completing the STEADFAST Study may be able to participate in an open-label extension trial until the earlier of the commercial availability of azeliragon, if approved, or 24 months from the date of their last visit.

The co-primary endpoints for the STEADFAST Study are the change from baseline in the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (“ADAS-COG₁₁”) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (“CDR-SB”) scores.  These endpoints are designed to establish efficacy by demonstrating a slowing in the loss of cognition and function in mild AD patients treated with azeliragon as compared to placebo. We are evaluating multiple secondary endpoints, including the key secondary endpoint of MRI brain volumetric measures. We believe that MRI imaging for volumetric measures has the potential to demonstrate modification of the underlying disease by azeliragon.  We anticipate reporting top-line results from sub-study A in April 2018 and sub-study B in early 2019.  If results from the STEADFAST Study are favorable, we expect that we would submit an NDA for azeliragon in the second half of 2019.

Completed Phase 2b Trial (TTP488-203)

Efficacy in Mild-to-Moderate AD Patients

Our completed Phase 2b clinical trial of azeliragon, TTP488-203, was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, 18-month trial assessing the safety and efficacy of azeliragon in 399 patients with mild-to-moderate AD, the intent-to-treat (“ITT”) population. Azeliragon or placebo was added to the standard of care, AChEIs and/or memantine. Patients were randomized to receive an oral dose of 20 mg/day of azeliragon, 5 mg/day of azeliragon or placebo. Patients in the high dose azeliragon arm initially received 60 mg/day of azeliragon for six days followed by a daily 20 mg dose, while patients in the low dose arm initially received 15 mg/day of azeliragon for six days followed by a 5 mg/day dose.  The study was done in partnership with Pfizer and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (“ADCS”).

6

The primary endpoint of the study was to impede the progression of AD over 18 months as measured by the change from baseline in ADAS-COG₁₁ score. The secondary endpoints included the changes in global, functional, cognitive and behavioral attributes as measured by CDR-SB, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (“ADCS-ADL”), MMSE and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (“NPI”).

Azeliragon, at the 5 mg/day dose, met its pre-specified ADAS-COG₁₁ endpoint demonstrating a statistically significant 3.1 point difference (p = 0.008) versus placebo at 18 months in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. The results of the primary ADAS-COG₁₁ endpoint are summarized in the figure below.   

The above analysis utilizes the analysis of covariance, or ANCOVA, to determine statistical significance, with multiple imputation method to handle missing data, as specified in the protocol for the trial. Additional preplanned statistical analyses of the primary endpoint data, including complete cases ANCOVA, last observation carried forward ANCOVA, generalized estimating equations and mixed model repeated measures, demonstrated that, in each analysis, azeliragon produces statistically significant differences from placebo on ADAS-COG₁₁ (p<0.05).

The results for global, functional, cognitive and behavioral secondary endpoints after 18 months were also favorable despite the study not being powered to show significance. In each of the CDR-SB, ADCS-ADL, MMSE and NPI, patients in the 5 mg/day dose arm of azeliragon demonstrated numerical improvement compared to the placebo arm. In particular, relative to placebo, the CDR-SB score improved by 0.7, the ADCS-ADL score improved by 1.4, the MMSE score improved by 1.0 and the NPI score improved by 1.2. In addition, the 5 mg/day treatment arm of azeliragon exhibited a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of psychiatric adverse events, including a statistically significant decrease in anxiety symptoms relative to the placebo group.

7

The results of the secondary endpoints in the ITT population are summarized in the following figures, which, in each case, illustrate a potential benefit of azeliragon versus placebo.

Azeliragon Effects on Global,

Functional, Behavioral and Cognitive Secondary Endpoints

ITT, Mild-to-Moderate AD (MMSE 14-26)

Prior to the completion of the analyses described above, a pre-specified interim safety analysis was conducted when 50% of subjects had completed the six-month visit. The 5 mg/day and placebo groups had no safety concerns. The high dose group was found to be associated with an increased incidence of confusion, falls and greater ADAS-COG₁₁ decline than placebo and was discontinued. The 5 mg/day and placebo groups were allowed to continue without modification after all subjects were re-consented. The cognitive impairment and side effects in the high dose group were demonstrated to be reversible after discontinuing the study drug.

A second pre-specified interim analysis, which did not include the population receiving the discontinued 20 mg/day dose, was conducted approximately 12 months after all subjects were randomized to compare only the 5 mg/day dose versus placebo for futility and safety. While this second pre-specified interim analysis also raised no concerns regarding safety in the low-dose group, the criterion for futility was met, and the Data Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”) consequently recommended discontinuation of the study. Pfizer elected then to discontinue the study. The futility analysis was conducted using data from only 84 patients, rather than the full population of 266 patients, and the data used in the analysis had not yet undergone rigorous database monitoring and error correction. Prior to the final database lock but after the decision to discontinue the study, data entry and scoring errors were found and corrected. Subsequent to the final database lock, we and independent statisticians attempted to replicate the results of Pfizer’s futility analysis but were unable to do so.

In accordance with the protocol-specified statistical analysis plan, Pfizer and the ADCS performed the analysis of the 5 mg/day dose with respect to the primary ADAS-COG₁₁ endpoint and the secondary endpoints, which produced the positive results described above. Additional analyses that we conducted subsequently also produced results consistent with those of the protocol-specified analysis. That work was subsequently published in two peer-reviewed publications.  Pfizer reverted the program to us in September 2011 and retains no residual economic rights in the program.

8

Efficacy in Mild AD Patients

Azeliragon at the 5 mg/day dose showed more pronounced efficacy in the mild AD sub-population (MMSE score 21-26) compared to patients with moderate AD (MMSE score 14-20). In the mild AD sub-population including 73 subjects randomized to receive drug, azeliragon exhibited a statistically significant 4.0-point difference (p=0.018) in the ADAS-COG₁₁ score relative to the placebo arm, which included 68 subjects. In addition, while the study was not powered to show statistical significance in global, functional, behavioral and cognitive secondary endpoints, the mild AD sub-population demonstrated more pronounced favorable effects in those endpoints, including a statistically significant 1.0-point difference in the CDR-SB score (p=0.02) compared to the placebo group. The additional secondary endpoints demonstrated numerical improvements relative to placebo of 3.2 for the ADCS-ADL score, 1.1 for the MMSE score and 3.1 for the NPI score.

The results of the primary ADAS-COG₁₁ endpoint in the mild AD population are summarized in the figure below.   

Further analyses were performed using time to event analysis for ADAS-COG_11, where progression was defined as an ADAS-COG₁₁ increase of 7 points from baseline.⁽¹⁾  Azeliragon 5 mg/day delayed time to cognitive deterioration (logrank p=0.0149) as summarized in the figure below:

9

Azeliragon Time to Event Analysis for ADAS-cog_11, where progression is defined as an ADAS-cog₁₁ increase of 7-points from baseline

The results were robust with sensitivity analyses that evaluated all cut-points between a 1 and 20-point worsening in ADAS-COG.  These sensitivity analyses demonstrated hazard ratios favoring azeliragon 5 mg/day as shown in the figure below.

10

The results of the secondary endpoints in the mild AD population are summarized in the following figures, which, in each case, illustrate potential benefits of azeliragon versus placebo.

Azeliragon Effects on Global,
Functional, Behavioral and Cognitive Secondary Endpoints
Mild AD (MMSE 21-26)

Adverse Events (Mild to Moderate AD Patients)

Among the most frequent adverse events (“AEs”) in patients who received the high dose (20 mg/day) of azeliragon were falls (30 / 22.2%), urinary tract infection (“UTI”) (24 / 17.8%), diarrhea (20 / 14.8%), fatigue (19 / 14.1%), dizziness (12 / 8.9%), confusional state (10 / 7.4%) and headache (9 / 6.7%). Falls and UTI were also among the most frequent AEs in patients who received the low dose (5 mg/day) of azeliragon and placebo. The incidences of falls and UTI in the low-dose treatment group were 26 (19.8%) and 21 (16.0%), respectively; the incidences of falls and UTI among patients who received placebo were 26 (19.7%) and 17 (12.9%), respectively.

11

Of particular note, there was a statistically significant lower incidence of psychiatric AEs in patients receiving 5 mg/day compared to placebo. This was evidenced by a statistically significant lower incidence of anxiety symptoms, along with numerically lower incidence of agitation, depression, sleep disorders, restlessness, aggression and confusion/disorientation.

No marked mean vital signs results or changes from baseline were observed in the active treatment groups compared to subjects who received placebo. There were no significant differences in laboratory blood or urine parameters or ECG changes between the three groups. No MRI findings of amyloid-associated imaging abnormalities (“ARIA”) were seen.

The high dose (20 mg/day) azeliragon arm was discontinued due to an increased incidence of confusion, falls, and an apparent accelerated cognitive decline suggested by a greater change over time in ADAS-COG₁₁ score at a pre-specified interim analysis by an independent DSMB. There were no safety concerns evident in the 5 mg/day dose or placebo and these groups were permitted to continue the trial following re-consenting of subjects. The cognitive impairment and side effects in the 20 mg/day dose were demonstrated to be reversible after discontinuing the study drug. The trajectory of the ADAS-COG₁₁ change from baseline curve over time not only showed the reversal of the transient cognitive worsening but ultimately crossed the placebo curve suggesting a possible underlying effect on the disease process. The mechanism behind the central nervous system (“CNS”) toxicity is unclear, but there were no signs of increased brain atrophy, no change in CSF and plasma levels of Aβ, and no detected amyloid-related imaging abnormalities in the high-dose group at the time the 20 mg/day arm of the study was discontinued.

Our Diabetes Programs – Glucokinase Activator and GLP-1r Agonist

Diabetes Overview

A person suffering from diabetes does not produce or properly use insulin (a hormone that enables people to get energy from food).

In type 2 diabetes, the secretion of insulin from the pancreas and the action of insulin on tissues such as fat and muscle are both abnormal. Type 2 diabetics produce insulin, but insulin production and use both decrease over time as the disease progresses, ultimately requiring insulin administration to manage the disease. Obesity is generally considered the major contributor to the development of type 2 diabetes. As the global obesity epidemic expands, the increase in the number of type 2 diabetes patients has and is expected to continue. With the increasing incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes, we believe there is a significant unmet medical need for treatment alternatives with improved efficacy and safety.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which a person’s pancreas stops producing insulin. Type 1 diabetes results when the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, called beta cells. While its causes are not yet entirely understood, scientists believe that both genetic factors and environmental triggers are involved. The onset of type 1 diabetes is not believed to be affected by diet or lifestyle.

12

Current Treatments for Diabetes and Their Limitations

Diabetic patients have difficulty achieving and maintaining consistent glycemic control, defined as HbA_1c < 7% as recommended by the American Diabetes Association. Failure to attain or maintain glycemic control over time raises a patient’s risk of disease progression with the attendant loss of control and progression to potentially serious complications, such as cardiovascular disease, blindness, kidney failure, and nerve damage.

The current treatment paradigm for type 2 diabetes focuses on lifestyle changes, including weight loss, if applicable, as well as medications to manage blood glucose levels. Obesity is generally considered the major contributor to the development of type 2 diabetes, and weight loss alone is associated with improvements in glycemic parameters. Optimal glycemic control is the treatment goal in diabetic patients to prevent the risk of long-term microvascular complications. There are currently several classes of drugs approved to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, including injectable drugs and oral anti-diabetic drugs (“OADs”). Existing injectable therapies for type 2 diabetes include most forms of insulin therapy and GLP-1r agonists. Existing OADs include metformin, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, with the addition of two new classes in the past few years, DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors, driving the OAD market’s growth. We believe the continued and significant unmet medical need for diabetes treatments is demonstrated by the commercial success of DPP-4 inhibitors, a new class of OADs which were first approved in the United States in 2006 and achieved annual sales of $5.2 billion in 2013.

While multiple oral drugs are approved for the management of high blood glucose (hyperglycemia) in type 2 diabetes, insulin injection is the only treatment option approved in the United States for type 1 diabetes. There is an unmet medical need to provide people with type 1 diabetes additional treatment options that can help them to achieve tighter blood glucose levels and reduce insulin doses without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels below normal) or ketoacidosis.

We expect our diabetes investigational drug candidates, if approved, to compete in the non-insulin therapy market, currently comprised of OADs and injectable GLP-1r agonists. OADs are the preferred first line treatment by physicians (primary care and endocrinologists), payors and patients given their ease of use, cost, convenience and no training requirements. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the goal of these therapies is to delay the progression to insulin dependence. Despite the availability of multiple oral therapies and the introduction of new oral therapies (DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors) with novel mechanisms for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, which are used both as monotherapy and in combination with other agents, there remains a lack of differentiation and inadequate efficacy. While injectable GLP-1r agonists are generally considered to have superior efficacy compared with approved OADs, primary care physicians and patients continue to prefer oral agents for their ease of use and improved patient compliance versus injectables. There remains an unmet medical need for an oral drug that mimics the superiority of GLP-1r agonists and reduces the incidence of hypoglycemia. 

Our Solutions: Glucokinase Activator and GLP-1r Agonist

With the increasing incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes, we believe there is a significant unmet medical need for treatment alternatives with improved efficacy, safety, and convenience. We have chosen two different approaches for the treatment of diabetes: activation of glucokinase (GK), through our drug candidate TTP399, and stimulation of GLP-1r, through our drug candidate TTP273. If approved, we believe TTP399 and TTP273 could offer attractive alternatives as OADs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.  In addition, there is a significant unmet medical need for treatments of type 1 diabetes with agents other than insulin injection.  TTP399 could also fill this unmet need by reducing the extent of reliance on insulin.

Glucokinase Activator

The Role of GK Activation in Diabetes

GK acts as the physiological glucose sensor, changing its conformation, activity and/or intracellular location in parallel with changes in glucose concentrations. GK has two main distinctive characteristics that make it a good choice for blood glucose control. First, its expression is mostly limited to tissues that require glucose-sensing (mainly liver and pancreatic β-cells). Second, GK is able to sense changes in serum glucose levels and modulate changes in liver glucose metabolism that in turn regulate the balance between hepatic glucose production and glucose consumption, and modulate changes in insulin secretion by the β-cells.

Studies in humans, along with numerous animal studies, showing that mutations in the gene encoding GK can cause both hyperglycemia (diabetes mellitus) and hypoglycemia (glucose levels below normal) depending on the mutation, confirm the critical role of GK in the regulation of glucose control. The concept of GK activation for the treatment of diabetes is attractive because it has proven to be effective and safe in normalizing glycemia in animal models of type 2 diabetes by a mechanism entirely distinct from the action of antidiabetic therapies currently on the market. Moreover, several lines of evidence have suggested that development of type 2 diabetes is related to functional impairment of the GK enzyme. Thus, GK activation may be a way to overcome an important underlying cause of type 2 diabetes progression and hence halt or delay the course of the disease.

13

Many competitors have tried to develop drugs that act as GKAs. Previously identified GKAs evaluated in the clinic for the treatment of type 2 diabetes demonstrate improved glucose control; however, these GKAs showed increased incidence of hypoglycemia and hyperlipidemia and an apparent lack of durability of efficacy. These liabilities have been correlated to hyperstimulation of the β-cells in a glucose independent manner and/or the accumulation of lipids in the liver, consistent with the disruption of GK and the glucokinase regulatory protein (“GKRP”) interaction by these GKAs. Thus, liver-selective compounds that do not activate GK in pancreatic β-cells or affect the GK-GKRP interaction in the liver are expected to demonstrate a superior profile in comparison to previously identified GKAs.

GK activation is also attractive as a potential therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes because it has been demonstrated in animal models of type 1 diabetes to reduce glucose as measured by HbA1c levels by a mechanism entirely distinct from the action of antidiabetic therapies currently on the market and to be well tolerated.

TTP399

TTP399 is an orally administered, small molecule, liver-selective GKA in development as a new potential OAD for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes with a novel mechanism of action: liver-selective activation of GK that seeks to provide intensive glycemic control without inducing significant hypoglycemia. If approved for type 2 diabetes, we believe TTP399 would compete primarily with other OADs, including DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors. Our trials for TTP399 suggest that our approach to GK activation has the potential to avoid the tolerability issues associated with other GKAs, such as activation of GK in the pancreas, stimulation of insulin secretion independent of glucose, hypoglycemia, increased lipids and liver toxicity. Further, we believe that TTP399, if approved, has the potential to normalize HbA_1c levels without having contraindication for renal impairment and with little risk of pancreatitis. Based on data from Phase 1 and 2 trials to date, we believe that TTP399, if approved, has the potential to be a first-in-class OAD due to its liver-selectivity and novel mechanism of action.  We are continuing to explore options for further development of this product alone or in collaboration with a partner.

We have completed nine Phase 1 and two Phase 2 clinical trials of TTP399. In our Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, TTP399 was well tolerated with negligible incidence of hypoglycemia.

Ongoing Phase 1b/2 simplici-T1 Study

In November 2017, we initiated the simplici-T1 Study, an adaptive Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of TTP399, assessing the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of TTP399 in adult patients with type 1 diabetes (“T1D”).  The study is designed to evaluate whether TTP399 is well tolerated when administered as an add-on to insulin therapy and can improve daily glucose profiles and HbA_1c in people living with T1D.  Results from the Phase 1b part of the study are expected in the first quarter of 2018.  The study is being conducted in partnership with JDRF.

Completed Phase 2b AGATA Study

In August 2016, we completed a Phase 2b clinical trial of TTP399, the AGATA Study, which was a six-month trial to demonstrate proof-of-concept that the benefits from TTP399 could be sustained over time. The AGATA Study was a multi-center adaptive Phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active- (sitagliptin) controlled, parallel group trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TTP399 following six months of administration in 190 subjects with type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin. Patients had a baseline HbA_1c of 7.0 - 9.5%. The AGATA Study included subjects across four arms, including two doses of TTP399 (400 mg and 800 mg), sitagliptin, which is a DPP-4 inhibitor, and placebo.  

The primary endpoint of the AGATA Study was the change from baseline in HbA_1c at six months. A key secondary endpoint was change in weight.

In the trial, TTP399 demonstrated achievement of the primary endpoint of statistically significant change from baseline in HbA_1c at six months of daily administration of 800 mg of TTP399. The reduction in HbA1c was dose-dependent and sustained throughout the duration of the study. TTP399 was also found to be well-tolerated and no adverse events of severe hypoglycemia or hyperlipidemia were reported in the TTP399-treated group.  

14

GLP-1r Agonist

The Role of GLP-1r Activation in Diabetes

GLP-1r is a class B, G protein-coupled receptor that regulates important physiological and pathological processes related to type 2 diabetes. GLP-1r stimulation as a therapeutic modality has been validated by the approval of peptide GLP-1r agonists, such as exendin-4 (Byetta) and liraglutide (Victoza). Subcutaneous administration of these peptides lowers blood glucose, decreases HbA_1c levels and reduces weight.  However, the injectable method of administration has limited their use. This injectable class of peptides is also associated with gastrointestinal side effects (nausea and vomiting). Despite the clinical success observed with the injectable peptides, no orally available GLP-1r agonists have demonstrated similar efficacy in clinical trials to date.

TTP273

TTP273 is a potential first-in-class, orally administered, small molecule, non-peptide GLP-1r agonist. We believe an orally administered GLP-1r agonist that mimics the metabolic effects of GLP-1r peptides showing enhanced glycemic control, an improved lipid profile and weight loss, without causing the gastrointestinal side effects typical of this class of compounds, would offer a competitive advantage compared to GLP-1r targeted treatment options currently available. For these reasons, we believe TTP273 has the potential to expand the use of GLP-1r agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

We have completed two Phase 1 clinical trials and one Phase 2 clinical trial of TTP273. Additionally, we have completed nine Phase 1 clinical trials and one Phase 2 clinical trial of TTP054, which was a predecessor orally administered GLP-1r agonist. In our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, TTP273 has been well tolerated with negligible incidences of nausea and vomiting. Based on the results of our completed Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of TTP273, we believe TTP273 to have the potential to provide both superior efficacy and tolerability versus peptide GLP-1r analogues.

Completed Phase 2 LOGRA Study

Our completed Phase 2 LOGRA study of TTP273 was a 12-week study conducted in 30 centers in the United States in 174 patients with Type 2 diabetes on stable doses of metformin. In the LOGRA study, the patients were randomized to receive either placebo or TTP273 at doses of 150 mg once or twice daily.  Patients in the once and twice daily treatment arms had mean placebo-subtracted HbA1c differences of -0.86 percent and -0.71 percent, respectively. HbA1c increased by 0.15 percent in patients randomized to placebo. Although the study was not powered to demonstrate weight loss, trends were observed with patients losing on average 0.9 kg and 0.6 kg in the once and twice daily arms, respectively. An increase in weight of 0.05 kg was observed in the placebo group. TTP273 was well tolerated with no incidence of vomiting in the TTP273-treated groups and an incidence of nausea lower that in the placebo group: 7.3% in the Placebo arm, 3.4% in QPM arm and 5.0% in the BID arm.

15

Additional Pipeline Opportunities

We are also developing a portfolio of additional investigational drug candidates for the treatment of inflammatory disorders.  Such candidates include: (1) a novel PDE4 inhibitor (HPP737) with a low potential for emesis which may allow an expanded therapeutics scope than currently marketed products in Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis; and (2) a BACH1/NRF2 modulator (HPP971).  These additional candidates have been through varying stages of preclinical and Phase 1 testing and we have submitted investigational new drug applications (“INDs”) for certain of them to the FDA.  While our primary focus is on the development of azeliragon, TTP399 and TTP273, we plan to continue to evaluate opportunities for furthering the development of these other compounds in our pipeline.  Such development may be done internally or through partnering relationships.

We entered into a License Agreement with Reneo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Reneo”), under which we granted Reneo an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize our peroxisome proliferation activated receptor delta (PPAR-δ) agonist program, including the compound HPP593.  Refer to “Business – License and Research Agreements – Reneo License Agreement” for additional details.

Third-Party Suppliers and Manufacturers

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to manufacture clinical supplies of our drug candidates and for our other research and discovery programs.

Intellectual Property

Patents

The IP portfolio for azeliragon includes a patent family covering azeliragon as a composition of matter, a patent family covering polymorphs of azeliragon and a patent family covering select methods of treatment using azeliragon. Azeliragon as a composition of matter is covered by issued patents in the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, China and Hong Kong. The issued U.S. patent covering azeliragon as a composition of matter is expected to expire in 2029, assuming we obtain the maximum possible extension. Patents covering azeliragon as a composition of matter outside the United States will expire no earlier than 2023 and may expire much later as a result of patent term extensions based on patent office delays, regulatory delays, or a combination thereof.  The patent with claims covering a method of treating patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease by administering about 5 mg per day of azeliragon expires in 2034.

The IP portfolio for TTP399 includes a patent family covering TTP399 as a composition of matter, a patent family covering combinations of TTP399 and metformin, a patent family covering combinations of TTP399 and DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1r agonists, and patent families covering two different solid formulations of TTP399. The patent family covering TTP399 as a composition of matter was filed in multiple jurisdictions around the world including the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada. The issued U.S. patent covering TTP399 as a composition of matter is expected to expire in 2030, assuming we obtain the maximum possible extension. Patents covering TTP399 as a composition of matter outside the United States will expire no earlier than 2025 and may expire much later as a

16

result of patent term extensions based on patent office delays, regulatory delays, or a combination thereof. Some patents and patent applications covering TTP399 as a composition of matter are licensed from Novo Nordisk A/S, while others are owned by us.

The IP portfolio for the GLP-1r program includes a a patent family covering TTP273 as a composition of matter, a patent family covering combinations of TTP273 and metformin, and a patent family covering methods of synthesizing precursors to TTP273. The patent family covering TTP273 as a composition of matter was filed in multiple jurisdictions around the world including the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada. The issued U.S. patent covering TTP273 as a composition of matter is expected to expire in 2035, assuming we obtain the maximum possible extension. Patents covering TTP273 as a composition of matter outside the United States will expire no earlier than 2030 and may expire much later as a result of patent term extensions based on patent office delays, regulatory delays or a combination thereof.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and commercial partners. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed by employees or through a relationship with a third party. 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, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become publicly known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our contractors use or incorporate intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

License and Research Agreements

Reneo License Agreement

On December 21, 2017, we entered into a License Agreement with Reneo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Reneo”) (the “Reneo License Agreement”), under which Reneo obtained an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize our peroxisome proliferation activated receptor delta (PPAR-δ) agonist program, including the compound HPP593, for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic application in humans.

Under the terms of the Reneo License Agreement, Reneo paid us an initial license fee of $3.0 million. We are eligible to receive additional potential development, regulatory and sales-based milestone payments totaling up to $94.5 million.  In addition, Reneo is obligated to pay us royalty payments at mid-single to low-double digit rates, based on tiers of annual net sales of licensed products.  Such royalties will be payable on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the latest of expiration of the licensed patents covering a licensed product in a country, expiration of data exclusivity rights for a licensed product in a country or a specified number of years after the first commercial sale of a licensed product in a country.  In addition, we have received common stock and certain participation rights representing a minority interest in Reneo’s outstanding equity.

Under the terms of the Reneo License Agreement, Reneo will be responsible for the worldwide development and commercialization of the licensed products, at its cost, and is required to use commercially reasonable efforts with respect to such development and commercialization efforts.

The Reneo License Agreement, unless terminated earlier, will continue until expiration of all royalty obligations of Reneo to us.  Either party may terminate the Reneo License Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach.  Reneo may terminate the Reneo License Agreement at will upon prior written notice.  Upon expiration (but not earlier termination) of the Reneo License Agreement the licenses granted to Reneo will survive on a royalty-free basis in perpetuity.

Huadong License

On December 21, 2017, we entered into a License Agreement with Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Huadong”) (the “Huadong License Agreement”), under which Huadong obtained an exclusive and sublicensable license to develop and commercialize our glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (“GLP-1r”) program, including the compound TTP273, for therapeutic uses in humans or animals, in China and certain other Pacific Rim countries, including Australia and South Korea (collectively, the “Huadong License Territory”).  Additionally, under the Huadong License Agreement, we obtained a non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free license to develop and commercialize certain Huadong patent rights and know-how related to our GLP-1r program for therapeutic uses in humans or animals outside of the Huadong License Territory.

17

Under the terms of the Huadong License Agreement, Huadong will pay us an initial license fee of $8.0 million and potential development and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $25.0 million, with an additional potential regulatory milestone of $20.0 million if Huadong receives regulatory approval for a central nervous system indication.  In addition, we are eligible for an additional $50.0 million in potential sales-based milestones, as well as royalty payments ranging from low-single to low-double digit rates, based on tiered sales of licensed products.  

Under the Huadong License Agreement, we are also responsible for conducting a Phase 2 multi-region clinical trial (the “Phase 2 MRCT”) including sites in both the United States and the Huadong License Territory for the purpose of assessing the safety and efficacy of TTP273 in patients with type 2 diabetes.  The Phase 2 MRCT will be designed to satisfy the requirements of the China Food and Drug Administration necessary in order for Huadong to begin a Phase 3 clinical trial in China.  We will also be responsible for contributing up to $3.0 million in connection with the Phase 2 MRCT.

Huadong will be responsible for the development and commercialization of the licensed products in the Huadong License Territory, at its cost, and is required to use commercially reasonable efforts with respect to its development efforts.  Further, Huadong is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize at least one GLP-1r compound in China.

The Huadong License Agreement, unless terminated earlier, will continue on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until expiration of the royalty obligations Huadong owes to us on such licensed product, which extend until the later of the expiration of certain patent or data exclusivity rights covering such licensed product in such country or eight years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.  Either party may terminate the Huadong License Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach.  Huadong may terminate the Huadong License Agreement at will upon prior written notice, subject to certain timing restrictions related to the Phase 2 MRCT.  

Calithera License Agreement

In March 2015, we entered into a License and Research Agreement with Calithera Biosciences, Inc. (“Calithera”) (the “Calithera License Agreement”), under which Calithera obtained an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize certain of our hexokinase II inhibitors for any therapeutics, prophylactic, preventative or diagnostic use.  This agreement was terminated, at the option of Calithera, effective December 21, 2017.

JDRF Agreement

In August 2017, we entered into a research, development and commercialization agreement with JDRF International (“JDRF”) (the “JDRF Agreement”) to support the funding of the simplici-T1 Study, an adaptive Phase 1b/2 study to explore the effects of TTP399, in type 1 diabetes.  We initiated this study in the fourth quarter of 2017.  According to the terms of the JDRF Agreement, JDRF will provide research funding of up to $3.0 million based on the achievement of research and development milestones, with the total funding provided by JDRF not to exceed approximately one-half of the total cost of the project.  Additionally, we have the obligation to make certain milestone payments to JDRF upon the commercialization, licensing, sale or transfer of TTP399 as a treatment for type 1 diabetes.

Novo Nordisk

In February 2007, we entered into an Agreement Concerning Glucokinase Activator Project with Novo Nordisk A/S (the “Novo License Agreement”) whereby we obtained an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under certain Novo Nordisk intellectual property rights to discover, develop, manufacture, have manufactured, use and commercialize products for the prevention, treatment, control, mitigation or palliation of human or animal diseases or conditions. As part of this license grant, we obtained certain worldwide rights to Novo Nordisk’s GKA program, including rights to preclinical and clinical compounds such as TTP399. Under the terms of the Novo License Agreement, we have additional potential developmental and regulatory milestone payments totaling up to $115.0 million for approval of a product. We are also obligated for an additional $75.0 million in potential sales-based milestones, as well as royalty payments, at mid-single digit royalty rates, based on tiered sales of commercialized licensed products.

Columbia University

In May 2015, we entered into a New Exclusive License Agreement (the “Columbia License Agreement”) with The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”) whereby we obtained a worldwide, exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses under certain Columbia RAGE-related patent rights to discover, develop, manufacture, use, sell, have sold, import, have made, offer to sell, rent, or lease RAGE-inhibiting small molecules, including azeliragon. We also obtained a worldwide right to use certain RAGE-related research information and material. Under the terms of the Columbia License Agreement, we are required to pay an annual fee of $0.1 million, a potential milestone payment of $0.8 million and royalty payments at low-single digit royalty rates based on the net sales of licensed products. At the end of 2021, any fees and payments under the agreement will end, and we will have an irrevocable license to the RAGE-related patent rights, research information and material.

18

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. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our drug candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, mechanism of action, control and predictability, convenience of dosing, price and reimbursement, and availability of comparable alternative therapies.

Many of the companies against which we may compete 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. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Potential Competing Products – Alzheimer’s Disease

There are currently limited approved treatments for AD in the United States and existing therapies treat only the symptoms of the disease, rather than targeting the underlying mechanisms. The approved symptomatic AD therapies in the United States fall into two classes, AChEIs and glutamatergic modulators. If azeliragon is approved, its mechanism of action may be complementary to existing standard of care, as well as that of drug candidates with differentiated mechanisms currently in development for AD, including anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies, BACE inhibitors, tau aggregation inhibitors and monoamine oxidase-b inhibitors. This will allow the opportunity for co-administration with these other drug candidates if they are successfully developed.  We are not aware of any other clinical-stage RAGE inhibitor investigational products being developed for the treatment of AD.

Potential Competing Products – Type 2 Diabetes

If approved, we expect that our type 2 diabetes investigational drug candidates will compete with currently available non-insulin medication products for type 2 diabetes. These products include the following:

In addition to existing marketed products, there are a number of product candidates currently in development focusing on the same mechanisms as our programs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, including:

We believe that our investigational drug candidates may offer key potential advantages over these competitive products that could enable our drug candidates, if approved, to capture meaningful market share from our competitors. Nevertheless, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of drug candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining regulatory approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ drugs may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any drug candidate we may commercialize and may render our drug candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses

19

of their development and commercialization. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market, existing treatments come off patent, and more advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our drug candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

Collaboration Revenue and Customers

The majority of our collaboration revenue for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 is related to our licenses of certain compounds in the pre-clinical stage or clinical stage, including the Calithera License Agreement, the Huadong License Agreement, and the Reneo License Agreement.  Revenue recognized in these periods relates to initial consideration received in the form of upfront payments and equity interests coupled with research activities performed by our personnel.  While we may continue to seek partnership opportunities for our other pre-clinical and diabetes assets, our primary focus continues to be on our Phase 3 clinical trial, the STEADFAST Study, with respect to azeliragon, and development of our diabetes investigational products, in particular TTP273 and TTP399 in the US.

Government Regulation and Product Approvals

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of biopharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Approval and Regulation of Drugs in the United States

In the United States, drug products are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and applicable implementing regulations and guidance. The failure of an applicant to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval and/or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical trials, refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, adverse publicity, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or Department of Justice, or DOJ, or other government entities, including state agencies.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps before the product candidate will be licensed by the FDA:

20

Preclinical Studies

Before an applicant begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, on April 28, 2008, the FDA amended its regulations governing the acceptance of foreign clinical studies not conducted under an investigational new drug application as support for an IND or a new drug application. The final rule provides that such studies must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practice, or GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and informed consent from subjects. The GCP requirements in the final rule encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

21

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee, or DSMB. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

Information about clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval.

Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the investigational drug product’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are well controlled, closely monitored and conducted in a limited patient population.

Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a drug: such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.”

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

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. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. 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, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Special Protocol Assessment

The special protocol assessment, or SPA, process is designed to facilitate the FDA’s review and approval of drugs by allowing the FDA to evaluate the proposed design and size of Phase 3 clinical trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a drug product’s efficacy. Upon specific request by a clinical trial sponsor, the FDA will evaluate the protocol and respond to a sponsor’s

22

questions regarding, among other things, primary efficacy endpoints, trial design and data analysis plans, within 45 days of receipt of the request.

The FDA ultimately assesses whether the protocol design and planned analysis of the trial are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the drug candidate with respect to effectiveness of the indication studied. All agreements and disagreements between the FDA and the sponsor regarding an SPA must be clearly documented in an SPA letter or the minutes of a meeting between the sponsor and the FDA.

Even if the FDA agrees to the design, execution and analyses proposed in protocols reviewed under the SPA process, the FDA may revoke or alter its agreement under the following circumstances:

A documented SPA may be modified, and such modification will be deemed binding on the FDA review division, except under the circumstances described above, if FDA and the sponsor agree in writing to modify the protocol and such modification is intended to improve the study. We have obtained an SPA with the FDA for our Phase 3 STEADFAST Study of azeliragon. Agreement by the FDA to the SPA does not guarantee that the results of a study conducted in accordance with the agreement will be successful or that other issues that arise may not impede approval of the investigational product.

Review and Approval of an NDA

In order to obtain approval to market a drug product in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides sufficient data establishing the safety, purity and potency of the proposed drug product for its intended indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity and potency of the drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

The NDA is a vehicle through which applicants formally propose that the FDA approve a new product for marketing and sale in the United States for one or more indications. Every new drug product candidate must be the subject of an approved NDA before it may be commercialized in the United States. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2018 is $2,421,495 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2018 is $304,162. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

Following submission of an NDA, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application generally within 60 calendar days of its receipt and strives to inform the sponsor by the 74^th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application 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 has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Under that agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities, or NMEs, are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date on which the FDA accepts the application for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for “priority review” are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date. For applications seeking approval of products that are not NMEs, the ten-month and six-month review periods run from the date that the FDA receives the application. The review process and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it

23

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 sites to assure compliance with GCP.  Under the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, the FDA must implement a protocol to expedite review of responses to inspection reports pertaining to certain applications, including applications for products in shortage or those for which approval is dependent on remediation of conditions identified in the inspection report.

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events and whether the product is a new molecular entity.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, 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.

Special Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited 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 are referred to as fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review designation, regenerative advanced therapy designation and accelerated approval.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. We have obtained Fast Track designation for azeliragon for the treatment of dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, a product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product 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 may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross‑disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case‑by‑case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement 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 product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority 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.

With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

Finally, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life‑threatening condition that provides

24

meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.  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 product’s clinical benefit.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider 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. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU.  ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many 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.

Post-Approval Regulation

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA may have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report, among other things, certain adverse reactions and manufacturing problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. 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 revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

25

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In the United States, health care professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, and its implementing regulations, as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCA, which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product for the proposed use. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the applicant for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

Thus, Section 505(b)(2) authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the applicant. NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) may provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress 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

26

and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may 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.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity, or 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 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 exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. 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 seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

The FDA must establish a priority review track for certain generic drugs, requiring the FDA to review a drug application within eight (8) months for a drug that has three (3) or fewer approved drugs listed in the Orange Book and is no longer protected by any patent or regulatory exclusivities, or is on the FDA’s drug shortage list. The new legislation also authorizes FDA to expedite review of ‘‘competitor generic therapies’’ or drugs with inadequate generic competition, including holding meetings with or providing advice to the drug sponsor prior to submission of the application.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

• the required patent information has not been filed;

• the listed patent has expired;

• the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or

• the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the new product.

27

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the applicant is not seeking approval).

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. As a result, approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

 Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of a clinical investigation involving human beings is begun and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, patient privacy laws and regulations and other health care laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state health care laws and regulations, include the following:

28

 Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Finally, based on the conduct of some of our clinical trials oversees, we are also subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that prohibits payments to foreign public officials relating to official acts. In addition to its prohibition on bribery of foreign government officials, the Act requires companies to maintain accurate records and have vigorous internal controls. The DOJ and SEC have made FCPA enforcement a high priority. In addition, other anti-corruption laws such as the UK Bribery Act are even broader than the FCPA in that they apply to bribes offered to any person, not just government officials. There are significant criminal and civil penalties and fines that attach to violations of the FCPA.

Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage and Health Care Reform

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of health care costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on 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 a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

29

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and biologics and other medical products, government control and other changes to the health care system in the United States. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA was enacted, which includes measures that have significantly changed health care financing by both governmental and private insurers. The provisions of the ACA of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are, among others, the following:

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year that started in 2013 and will stay in effect through 2024 unless additional Congressional action is taken, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

These healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices or the frequency with which products are prescribed or administered.  Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.  Since enactment of the ACA, there have been numerous legal challenges and

30

Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law.  In May 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation known as the American Health Care Act of 2017.  Thereafter, the Senate Republicans introduced and then updated a bill to replace the ACA known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. The Senate Republicans also introduced legislation to repeal the ACA without companion legislation to replace it, and a “skinny” version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017.  In addition, the Senate considered proposed healthcare reform legislation known as the Graham-Cassidy bill.  None of these measures was passed by the U.S. Senate.

The Trump Administration has also taken executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA.  In January 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices.  In October 2017, the President signed a second Executive Order allowing for the use of association health plans and short-term health insurance, which may provide fewer health benefits than the plans sold through the ACA exchanges.  At the same time, the Administration announced that it will discontinue the payment of cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurance companies until Congress approves the appropriation of funds for such CSR payments. The loss of the CSR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA.  A bipartisan bill to appropriate funds for CSR payments was introduced in the Senate, but the future of that bill is uncertain.

More recently, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by the President on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.”  The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, will become effective in 2019.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the individual mandate will cause 13 million fewer Americans to be insured in 2027 and premiums in insurance markets may rise.  Additionally, on January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices.  The Congress will likely consider other legislation to replace elements of the ACA, during the next Congressional session.

Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and may become subject to additional foreign regulations pertaining to commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates to the extent we choose to clinically evaluate or sell any products outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. As in the United States, post-approval regulatory requirements, such as those regarding product manufacture, marketing, or distribution would apply to any product that is approved for sale outside the United States.

31

 On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union (“EU”) (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, on March 29, 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU will take effect either on the effective date of the withdrawal agreement or, in the absence of agreement, two years after the United Kingdom provides a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the EU Treaty. Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom. covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical 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. It remains to be seen how, if at all, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had 56 employees, of which at least 23 hold graduate degrees (including 17 doctorate degrees) and 37 are engaged in full-time research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union, and we consider our employee relations to be good.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 2015. Our principal executive offices are located at 4170 Mendenhall Oaks Pkwy, High Point, NC 27265, and our telephone number is (336) 841-0300.  We also maintain a corporate website, www.vtvtherapeutics.com, where stockholders and other interested persons may review, without charge, among other things, corporate governance materials and certain SEC filings, which are generally available on the same business day as the filing date with the SEC on the SEC’s website http://www.sec.gov.  The contents of our website are not made a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Relating to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with limited operating history. We have never been profitable and do not expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future. We have incurred net losses in each year since beginning to develop our drug candidates, including net losses of approximately $16.1 million, $16.4 million and $27.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, we had a total members’ deficit of approximately $279.1 million. In addition, we have not commercialized any products and have never generated any revenue from the commercialization of any product. We have devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including our preclinical development activities and clinical trials. We expect to incur significant additional operating losses for the next several years, at least, as we conduct our research and development activities, advance drug candidates through clinical development, complete clinical trials, seek regulatory approval and, if we receive FDA approval, commercialize our products. Furthermore, the costs of advancing drugs into each succeeding clinical phase tend to increase substantially over time. The total costs to advance any of our drug candidates to marketing approval in even a single jurisdiction would be substantial. 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 begin generating revenue from the commercialization of products or achieve or maintain profitability. We expect to continue to incur significant additional expenses as we continue the STEADFAST Study and other trials, begin outsourcing of the commercial manufacturing of azeliragon for any indications for which we receive regulatory approval, advance our other drug candidates and expand our research and development programs. Furthermore, our ability to successfully develop, commercialize and license our products and generate product revenue is subject to substantial additional risks and uncertainties, as described under “—Risks Relating to the Discovery, Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Drug Candidates” and “—Risks Relating to the Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates.” As a result, we expect to continue to incur net losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future. These net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. In addition, we may not be able to enter into any collaborations that will generate significant cash. If we are unable to develop and commercialize one or more of our drug candidates either alone or with collaborators, or if revenues from any drug candidate that receives marketing approval are insufficient, we will not achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability. If we are unable to achieve and then maintain profitability, the value of our equity securities will be materially and adversely affected.

32

Currently, we have no products approved for commercial sale, and to date we have not generated any revenue from product sales. As a result, our ability to generate revenue from products, curtail our losses and reach profitability is unproven, and we may never generate substantial product revenue.

We have no products approved for commercialization and have never generated any revenue from the commercialization of any product. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory and marketing approvals necessary to commercialize one or more of our product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenue from product sales for several years. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales depends heavily on our success in many areas, including but not limited to:

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

We will need additional capital to complete the STEADFAST Study and to complete the development and commercialization of azeliragon and our other drug candidates, and there is a substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to raise sufficient capital for these purposes, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. We expect our research and development expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the STEADFAST Study, undertake additional clinical trials of our other drug candidates and continue to work on our other research programs. Our current capital and the funds available to us under the letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with MacAndrews & Forbes Group LLC, an affiliate of MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated (together with its affiliates “MacAndrews”), a related party, for its commitment to invest up to $10.0 million over a one-year period will not be sufficient for us to complete the STEADFAST Study and the development of our other drug candidates. As such, we will need to raise substantial additional capital to complete the development and commercialization of azeliragon, as well as the portion of the clinical trial costs imposed upon us by the Huadong License Agreement and the JDRF Agreement for TTP273 and TTP399, respectively. We are seeking possible additional partnering opportunities for our GKA, GLP-1r and other drug candidates which we believe may provide additional cash for use in our operations and the continuation of the clinical trials for our drug candidates.  We may also pursue other sources of financing to provide flexibility to our operating plan.  The timing and availability of such financing are not yet known.

If the FDA or other regulators require that we perform additional studies beyond those we currently expect, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our drug candidates, our expenses could increase beyond what we currently anticipate and the timing of any potential product approval may be delayed. We have no commitments or arrangements for any additional financing to fund our research and development programs other than those available to us through our Letter Agreement. We also will need to raise substantial additional capital in the future to complete the development and commercialization of azeliragon for additional indications and for developing our other drug candidates. Because successful development of our drug candidates is uncertain,

33

we are unable to estimate the actual funds required to complete research and development and commercialize and license our products under development.

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of revenue from our drug candidates, if ever, we expect to finance future cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We may seek to access the public or private capital markets whenever conditions are favorable, even if we do not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time. If worldwide economic conditions and the international equity and credit markets deteriorate and return to depressed states, it will be more difficult for us to obtain additional equity or credit financing, when needed.

Our recurring losses, accumulated deficit and our current levels of cash and cash equivalents raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as of the date of this report.  If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and it is likely that investors will lose all or a significant part of their investments.  If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and such additional funding may cause substantial dilution to our existing investors. Further, if adequate funds are not available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our research or development programs.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue, we may finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We do not currently have any committed external source of funds other than those available to us through our Letter Agreement. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the interest of our stockholders 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 capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

34

Under the Letter Agreement, until December 5, 2018, we have the right to sell MacAndrews shares of our Class A common stock at a per share price of $4.38 per share, and MacAndrews also has the right to require us to sell it shares of our Class A common stock at the same per share price. Any shares of our Class A common stock that are sold pursuant to the Letter Agreement will dilute the interest of our stockholders. An aggregate of $10.0 million worth of Class A common stock may be sold to MacAndrews under the Letter Agreement (whether at our or MacAndrews’ option). In addition, in connection with the Letter Agreement, we also issued MacAndrews warrants to purchase 198,267 shares of our Class A common stock at a price of $5.04 per share, exercisable until December 5, 2024. Sales of Class A common stock under the Letter Agreement or the related warrants may result in substantial dilution to existing investors.

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

Our significant amount of debt could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our debt-related obligations.

We have a significant amount of debt.  As of December 31, 2017, the total principal amount of our debt was $20.0 million, all of which was incurred under the Loan Agreement.  

The Loan Agreement is secured by a first priority security interest in substantially all of our assets other than our intellectual property.  Subject to certain conditions related to our Phase 3 clinical trial of azeliragon, we may be required to grant a security interest in our intellectual property.  We have agreed not to pledge or otherwise encumber our intellectual property assets, subject to certain exceptions.  The level and nature of our indebtedness could, among other things:

We may also incur significantly more debt in the future, which will increase each of the risks described above related to our indebtedness.

Restrictions and covenants in the Loan Agreement limit our ability to take certain actions and impose consequences in the event of failure to comply.

The Loan Agreement contains a number of significant restrictions and covenants that limit our ability (subject in each case to limited exceptions) to, among other things,

35

These covenants affect our operating flexibility by, among other things, restricting our ability to incur expenses and indebtedness that could otherwise be used to fund the costs of executing our business strategy and to grow our business, as well as to fund general corporate purposes.  Our ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond our control and we may not be able to meet these covenants.  A breach under the Loan Agreement would permit our lenders to accelerate amounts outstanding thereunder.  We may not have sufficient funds at the time of any such breach to repay, in full or in part, the borrowings under the Loan Agreement.

We have a limited operating history, and we expect a number of factors to cause our operating results to fluctuate on a quarterly and annual basis, which may make it difficult to predict our future performance.

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Our operations to date have been primarily limited to developing our technology and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of azeliragon and our other drug candidates. We have not yet obtained regulatory approvals for azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates. Consequently, any statements about our future success or viability are not based on any substantial operating history or commercialized products. Our financial condition and operating results have varied significantly in the past and will continue to fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. As a result, we may never successfully develop and commercialize a product, which could lead to a material adverse effect on the value of any investment in our securities.

Risks Relating to the Discovery, Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Drug Candidates

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Because the results of earlier clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, any drug candidate we advance through various stages of clinical trials or development may not have favorable results in later stages of clinical trials or development or receive regulatory approval.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or preclinical trials. In addition, data obtained from trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. For example, although treatment in our Phase 2b clinical trial in mild-to-moderate AD patients was discontinued early due to the findings of an interim futility analysis conducted approximately 12 months after all subjects were randomized, subsequent statistical analyses conducted in accordance with the protocol-specified statistical analysis plan found a statistically significant improvement, as described further under “Business—Our Alzheimer’s Program − Azeliragon—Completed Phase 2b Trial (TTP488-203).” Furthermore, an analysis of azeliragon in the subgroup of AD patients with MMSE scores of 21-26 (which are the mild AD patients that are the subjects of our Phase 3 STEADFAST Study) found that azeliragon had more pronounced efficacy in that subgroup. While we have reached an agreement with the FDA for our Phase 3 trial of azeliragon under a special protocol assessment, or SPA, there can be no assurance that the results of this Phase 3 trial will be consistent with the findings of our analyses from the Phase 2b trial. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a drug candidate. Frequently, drug candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials have subsequently suffered significant setbacks in later clinical trials. In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. While members of our management team have experience in designing clinical trials, our company has limited experience in designing clinical trials, and we may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval. Further, clinical trials of potential products often reveal that it is not practical or feasible to continue development efforts. For example, if the results of the STEADFAST Study do not achieve the primary efficacy endpoints or demonstrate safety, the prospects for approval of azeliragon would be materially and adversely affected. If azeliragon or our other drug candidates are found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for them and our business would be materially harmed.

While we have negotiated a special protocol assessment, or SPA, agreement with the FDA relating to the STEADFAST Study, this agreement does not guarantee approval of azeliragon or any other particular outcome from regulatory review of the study or the drug candidate.

We have reached agreement with the FDA to conduct the STEADFAST Study, our Phase 3 trial of azeliragon pursuant to an SPA agreement. The FDA’s SPA process is designed to facilitate the FDA’s review and approval of drugs by allowing the FDA to evaluate

36

the proposed design and size of Phase 3 trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a drug product’s efficacy. Upon specific request by a clinical trial sponsor, the FDA will evaluate the protocol and respond to a sponsor’s questions regarding, among other things, primary efficacy endpoints, trial design and data analysis plans, within 45 days of receipt of the request. The FDA ultimately assesses whether the protocol design and planned analysis of the trial are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the drug candidate with respect to its effectiveness against the indication studied. All agreements and disagreements between the FDA and the sponsor regarding an SPA must be clearly documented in an SPA letter or the minutes of a meeting between the sponsor and the FDA. Nevertheless, an SPA agreement does not guarantee approval of a drug candidate, and even if the FDA agrees to the design, execution and analysis proposed in protocols reviewed under the SPA process, the FDA may revoke or alter its agreement in certain circumstances. In particular, an SPA agreement is not binding on the FDA if public health concerns emerge that were unrecognized at the time of the SPA agreement, other new scientific concerns regarding product safety or efficacy arise, the sponsor company fails to comply with the agreed upon trial protocols, or the relevant data, assumptions or information provided by the sponsor in a request for the SPA change or are found to be false or omit relevant facts. In addition, even after an SPA agreement is finalized, the SPA agreement may be modified, and such modification will be deemed binding on the FDA review division, except under the circumstances described above, if the FDA and the sponsor agree in writing to modify the protocol and such modification is intended to improve the study. The FDA retains significant latitude and discretion in interpreting the terms of the SPA agreement and the data and results from any study that is the subject of the SPA agreement.

In addition to the risk that the FDA may decide that we have not met conditions for approval notwithstanding the terms of the SPA, our Phase 3 trial of azeliragon may not be completed in material accordance with the SPA agreement and the data generated may not meet the endpoints that have been agreed in the SPA to represent adequate evidence of effectiveness, and, for those or other reasons, may not result in any FDA approval for azeliragon. We expect that the FDA will review our compliance with the protocol under our SPA agreement and that it will conduct inspections of some of the more than 100 sites where the clinical trial will be conducted. Each of the clinical trial sites may not pass such FDA inspections, and negative inspection results could significantly delay or prevent any potential approval for azeliragon. Even if we believe that the data collected from the Phase 3 trial demonstrate adequate evidence of efficacy in accordance with the SPA, if the FDA revokes or alters its agreement under the SPA, or if the FDA interprets the data collected from the clinical trial differently than we do, the FDA may not deem the data sufficient to support an application for regulatory approval, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Fast Track designation for one or more of our product candidates may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

If a product 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 product sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. The FDA granted Fast Track designation to azeliragon.  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.

We cannot be certain that azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates will receive regulatory approval, and without regulatory approval we will not be able to market our drug candidates and generate revenue from products. Any delay in the regulatory review or approval of azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates will materially and adversely affect our business.

We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of azeliragon, our most advanced drug candidate. Our ability to generate revenue related to product sales, which we do not expect will occur for at least the next several years, if ever, will depend on the successful development and regulatory approval of our drug candidates. We may conduct the STEADFAST Study only to learn that azeliragon is not a safe or effective treatment, in which case the STEADFAST Study may not lead to regulatory approval for azeliragon. Similarly, our clinical development programs for our other drug candidates may not lead to regulatory approval from the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies. This failure to obtain regulatory approvals would prevent our drug candidates from being marketed and would prevent us from generating revenue from our drug candidates, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business.

All of our drug candidates require regulatory review and approval prior to commercialization, and generally, only a small percentage of pharmaceutical products under development are ultimately approved for commercial sale. This is particularly true in the area of treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, where pharmaceutical development has been particularly challenging. Moreover, any delays in the regulatory review or approval of our drug candidates would delay market launch, increase our cash requirements and result in additional operating losses.

37

The process of obtaining FDA and other required regulatory approvals, including foreign approvals, often takes many years and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the products involved. Furthermore, this approval process is extremely complex, expensive and uncertain, and failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can, among other things, result in the suspension of regulatory approval as well as possible civil and criminal sanctions. We may be unable to submit any new drug application, or an NDA, in the United States or any marketing approval application in foreign jurisdictions for any of our products. If we submit an NDA including any amended NDA or supplemental NDA, to the FDA seeking marketing approval for any of our drug candidates, the FDA must decide whether to accept or reject the submission for filing. We cannot be certain that any of these submissions will be accepted for filing and reviewed by the FDA, or that the marketing approval application submissions to any other regulatory authorities will be accepted for filing and review by those authorities. We cannot be certain that we will be able to respond to any regulatory requests during the review period in a timely manner, or at all, without delaying potential regulatory action. We also cannot be certain that any of our drug candidates will receive favorable recommendations from any FDA advisory committee or foreign regulatory bodies or be approved for marketing by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, delays in approvals or rejections of marketing applications may be based upon many factors, including regulatory requests for additional analyses, reports, data and studies, regulatory questions regarding data and results, changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development and the emergence of new information regarding azeliragon or our other drug candidates.

Data obtained from preclinical studies and clinical trials are subject to different interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory review or approval of any of our drug candidates. Furthermore, regulatory attitudes towards the data and results required to demonstrate safety and efficacy can change over time and can be affected by many factors, such as the emergence of new information, including on other products, policy changes and agency funding, staffing and leadership. We do not know whether future changes to the regulatory environment will be favorable or unfavorable to our business prospects.

In addition, the environment in which our regulatory submissions may be reviewed changes over time. For example, average review times at the FDA for NDAs have fluctuated over the last ten years, and we cannot predict the review time for any of our submissions with any regulatory authorities. Review times can be affected by a variety of factors, including budget and funding levels and statutory, regulatory and policy as well as personnel changes at the FDA. Moreover, in light of widely publicized events concerning the safety risk of certain drug products, regulatory authorities, members of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, medical professionals and the general public have raised concerns about potential drug safety issues. These events have resulted in the withdrawal of drug products, revisions to drug labeling that further limit use of the drug products and establishment of REMS, measures that may, for instance, place restrictions on the distribution of new drug products. The increased attention to drug safety issues may result in a more cautious approach by the FDA to clinical trials. Data from clinical trials may receive greater scrutiny with respect to safety, which may make the FDA or other regulatory authorities more likely to delay or terminate clinical trials before completion, or require longer or additional clinical trials that may result in substantial additional expense and a delay or failure in obtaining approval or may result in approval for a more limited indication than originally sought.

In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a drug candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, and approval in one jurisdiction does not guarantee approval in any other jurisdiction. Our drug candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

38

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our drug candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our drug candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a drug candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that drug candidate. For example, even if azeliragon receives regulatory approval, it may not be approved by the FDA as a disease modifying treatment. To date, the FDA has not approved any drugs for the treatment of AD as disease modifying. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our drug candidates.

The results of previous clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, and the results of our current and planned clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities.

We currently have no drugs approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable drugs. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any 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 drug candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future larger registration clinical trials will be successful because drug candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities despite having progressed through early-stage clinical trials. Drug candidates that have shown promising results in early-stage clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent registration clinical trials. Additionally, the outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. 

The FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our and/or our clinical trial investigators’ interpretation of data from clinical trials in determining if serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are drug-related.

We, and our clinical trial investigators, currently determine if serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are drug-related. The FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our or our clinical trial investigators’ interpretation of data from clinical trials and the conclusion by us or our clinical trial investigators that a serious adverse effect or unacceptable side effect was not drug-related. The FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may require more information, including additional preclinical or clinical data to support approval, which may cause us to incur additional expenses, delay or prevent the approval of one of our drug candidates, and/or delay or cause us to change our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development or commercialization of the drug candidate altogether.

Changes in law could have a negative impact on the approval of our drug candidates.

The FDA has established regulations, guidelines and policies to govern the drug development and approval process, as have foreign regulatory authorities.  Any change in regulatory requirements resulting from the adoption of new legislation, regulations or policies may require us to amend existing clinical trial protocols or add new clinical trials to comply with these changes.  Such amendments to existing protocols or clinical trial applications or the need for new ones, may significantly and adversely affect the cost, timing and completion of the clinical trials for our drug candidates.  In addition, the FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be issued that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates, or impose more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.   If we are slow or unable to adapt to any such changes, our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability would be adversely affected.

Under the CURES Act and the Trump Administration’s regulatory reform initiatives, the FDA’s policies, regulations and guidance may be revised or revoked and that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, which would impact our ability to generate revenue.

In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation is unclear. If we are slow or unable to adapt to

39

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 and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We also 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. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. An under-staffed FDA could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all. Moreover, on January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order, applicable to all executive agencies, including the FDA, which requires that for each notice of proposed rulemaking or final regulation to be issued in fiscal year 2017, the agency shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law. These requirements are referred to as the “two-for-one” provisions. This Executive Order includes a budget neutrality provision that requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater than zero, except in limited circumstances. For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the Executive Order requires agencies to identify regulations to offset any incremental cost of a new regulation and approximate the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation. In interim guidance issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB on February 2, 2017, the administration indicates that the “two-for-one” provisions may apply not only to agency regulations, but also to significant agency guidance documents. In addition, on February 24, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing each affected agency to designate an agency official as a “Regulatory Reform Officer” and establish a “Regulatory Reform Task Force” to implement the two-for-one provisions and other previously issued executive orders relating to the review of federal regulations, however it is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

Delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of our clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval for azeliragon and our other drug candidates.

Delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of clinical trials could increase our product development costs or limit the regulatory approval of our drug candidates. We commenced the STEADFAST Study in April 2015 and have successfully completed the enrollment of both of its sub-studies; however, this clinical trial and reports of data from the study may not be completed on schedule, if at all. In addition, we do not know whether planned clinical trials of azeliragon in additional indications and of our other drug candidates will begin on time or will be completed on schedule or at all. The commencement, enrollment and completion of the STEADFAST Study or other clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including:

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. Furthermore, we rely

40

on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including:

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our drug candidates, the commercial prospects of our drug candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these drug candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our drug candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our drug candidates.

We have never completed a Phase 3 clinical trial or submitted an NDA before and may be unable to do so for azeliragon and other drug candidates we are developing.

The conduct of Phase 3 clinical trials and the submission of a successful NDA is a complicated process. As a team, we have never conducted a Phase 3 clinical trial before, have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings, and have not submitted an NDA before. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete these planned clinical trials in a way that leads to NDA submission and approval of azeliragon and other drug candidates we are developing. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of drug candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials would prevent or delay commercialization of azeliragon and other drug candidates we are developing.

Our drug candidates may cause serious adverse events or undesirable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval, or, if approval is received, require them to be taken off the market, require them to include safety warnings or otherwise limit their sales.

Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects from azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after the approved product has been marketed. The results of future clinical trials, including the STEADFAST Study, may show that our drug candidates cause serious adverse events or undesirable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, resulting in delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities or could result in a more restrictive label if our drug candidates are approved. For example, in a Phase 2 study, patients treated with azeliragon at a dose of 20 mg/day experienced a higher level of adverse events including confusion and falls that ultimately led to discontinuation of the study at that dose, but such elevated levels of adverse events were not observed at the 5 mg/day dose.

41

If azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates cause serious adverse events or undesirable side effects either during clinical development, or after marketing approval, if obtained:

Any of these events could prevent us from obtaining approval, or achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product, if approved, or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from the sale of our products.

Azeliragon and our other drug candidates employ novel mechanisms of action and may never be approved or accepted by their intended markets.

Azeliragon and a number of our other drug candidates have novel mechanisms of action. Azeliragon targets RAGE, a novel mechanism of action for the treatment of AD. We are not aware of any other products under development that target RAGE. Our future success depends on our ability to complete the STEADFAST Study of azeliragon successfully, obtain market approval for and successfully commercialize azeliragon, as well as our ability to develop and market other drug candidates. The scientific discoveries that form the basis of our drug candidates are relatively new. We are not aware of any other drugs for the treatment of AD that have the same mechanism of action as azeliragon and even if azeliragon is approved, physicians may not be willing to use it. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize drug candidates based upon our technological approach, we may not become profitable and the value of our common stock may decline.

Evidence of the effectiveness of azeliragon in humans is limited to data generated in a single Phase 2b study and to the group of patients in that study receiving the lower, 5 mg/day, dose of the drug. Patients in that study who received the higher, 20 mg/day, dose of the drug tended to experience adverse events. The FDA has granted Fast Track designation to our azeliragon development program based on our pre-clinical (animal) studies and not based on our Phase 2b study. The results of the Phase 2b study may not be replicated in our Phase 3 STEADFAST Study, and the FDA may not approve azeliragon for commercial use.

In addition, regulatory approval of novel drug candidates such as azeliragon and our other drug candidates using novel mechanisms of action can be more expensive and take longer than other, more well-known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical products, due to our and regulatory agencies’ lack of experience with them. We are not aware of the FDA reviewing any other products targeting RAGE as a mechanism of action to date. This lack of experience may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to conduct additional studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these drug candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

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

We are conducting a portion of the STEADFAST Study outside the United States.  Also, we are required to conduct a portion of the Phase 2 MRCT outside the United States pursuant to the Huadong License Agreement. We may in the future choose to conduct

42

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

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

Risks Relating to the Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates

If any of our drug candidates for which we receive regulatory approval do not achieve broad market acceptance, the revenues that are generated from their sales will be limited.

The commercial success of azeliragon and our other drug candidates, if approved, will depend upon the acceptance of these products among physicians, healthcare payors, patients and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our drug candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If our drug candidates are approved, but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, healthcare payors, patients and others in the medical community, sufficient revenue may not be generated from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our drug candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful.

43

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

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale or marketing of pharmaceutical drugs. To achieve commercial success for any approved drug for which sales and marketing is not the responsibility of any strategic collaborator that we may have in the future, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to other third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a sales and marketing infrastructure to market our drug candidates, if and when they are approved, or enter into collaborations with respect to the sale and marketing of our drug candidate.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any commercial launch of a drug candidate. If the commercial launch of a drug candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

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

Entering into arrangements with third parties to perform sales and marketing services may result in lower revenues from the sale of drug or the profitability of these revenues to us than if we were to market and sell any drugs that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our drug candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our drugs 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 drug candidates.

Even if our drug candidates receive regulatory approval, we will still be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, and we may still face future development and regulatory difficulties.

Even if regulatory approval is obtained for any of our drug candidates, regulatory authorities may still impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies. Given the number of high profile adverse safety events with certain drug products, regulatory authorities may require, as a condition of approval, costly REMS, which may include safety surveillance, restricted distribution and use, patient education, enhanced labeling, expedited reporting of certain adverse events, pre-approval of promotional materials and restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising. For example, any labeling approved for any of our drug candidates may include a restriction on the term of its use, or it may not include one or more of our intended indications or patient populations. Furthermore, any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays or increased costs during the period of product development, clinical trials and regulatory review and approval, as well as increased costs to assure compliance with any new post-approval regulatory requirements.

Our drug candidates will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. In addition, sellers of approved products, manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP. As such, we and our CMOs are subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and the terms and conditions of approvals. 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 certain requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have approval.

If a regulatory agency discovers problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or objects to the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, it may

44

impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If our drug candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The FDA’s policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our drug 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.

We expect that our existing and future drug candidates will face competition, and most of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do.

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic or biosimilar drug companies, universities and other research institutions. Our drug candidates, if successfully developed and approved, will compete in crowded and competitive markets. In order to compete with approved products, our drug candidates will need to demonstrate compelling advantages. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our drug candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, mechanism of action, control and predictability, convenience of dosing and price and reimbursement. Our most advanced drug candidate, azeliragon, is being developed for use in the treatment of patients with mild AD receiving a standard of care with an aceytlcholinesterase inhibitor and/or memantine. If approved for this indication, new competitors may emerge and azeliragon may face competition from several therapies currently in clinical development that address different mechanisms of action than azeliragon.

Potential competitors with products in late stage clinical development are Biogen Inc, with its drug candidate aducanumab and Roche with its drug candidate gantenerumab.

Our drug candidates TTP399 and TTP273, compounds for treating type 2 diabetes, would compete with both marketed non-insulin anti-diabetic medications and non-insulin anti-diabetic agents that are in clinical development. Competition is high among novel drug classes for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Products that are currently available that may compete with TTP399 and TTP273 include DPP-4 inhibitors, such as sitagliptin or saxagliptin, SGLT-2 inhibitors, such as dapagliflozin and canagliflozin, and GLP-1 agonists, such as liraglutide and exenatide. Companies with GKAs in early clinical development that may compete with TTP399 include Hua Medicine Ltd., Yabao Pharmaceutical Co, Inc., Pegbio Co. Ltd. and Teijin Pharma Limited.  Oral GLP-1 agonists in clinical development that may compete with TTP273 include oral semaglutide being developed by Novo Nordisk A/S and ORMD-0901 being developed by Oramed.

In type 1 diabetes, oral non-insulin agents that are currently being developed that may compete with TTP399 include SGLT-1/2 inhibitors, such as sotagliflozin, being developed by Sanofi/Lexicon and SGLT-2 inhibitors such as AstraZeneca’s dapagliflozin and Eli Lilly/ Boehringer Ingelheim’s empagliflozin.

Many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

45

In addition, academic and government institutions are increasingly likely to enter into exclusive licensing agreements with commercial enterprises, including our competitors, to market commercial products based on technology developed at such institutions. Many of these competitors have significant products approved or in development that could be competitive with our products.

Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining regulatory approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ drugs may be more effective, less costly, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any drug candidate we may commercialize and may render our drug candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of their development and commercialization. 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 drug candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

Healthcare cost containment initiatives and the growth of managed care may limit our revenues and profitability.

Our ability to commercialize our products successfully may be negatively affected by the ongoing efforts of governmental and third-party payors to contain the cost of health care. In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, was passed, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These automatic reductions include aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2024 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers. 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 drug candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Both governmental and third-party payers are challenging the cost of healthcare products and services, denying or limiting coverage and reimbursement amounts for new therapeutic products, for FDA-approved products considered experimental or investigational or used for disease indications without FDA marketing approval. Any restrictions in coverage or reductions in reimbursement rates under government programs often result in reductions in reimbursement rates by insurance companies and other third-party payors.

Even if we succeed in bringing azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates to the market, we may not be considered cost-effective, and governmental or third-party payor coverage and reimbursement might not be available or sufficient. If adequate governmental or third-party coverage or reimbursement is not available, we may not be able to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development. In addition, legislation and regulations affecting the pricing of pharmaceuticals may change in ways adverse to us before or after any of our proposed products are approved for marketing.

46

Therefore, adverse changes in third-party payor coverage and reimbursement and/or new state and federal healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial conditions and results of operations.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any future collaborators to obtain marketing approval of our other drug candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any collaborators, to profitably sell any products for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any future collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States has also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States, and members of Congress and the Administration have stated that they will address such costs through new legislative and administrative measures.  The pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is also subject to governmental control outside the United States.  In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our ability to generate revenues and become profitable could be impaired.  In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs.

Moreover, legislative and regulatory proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical drugs. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our drug 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 and any future collaborators to more stringent drug labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any drugs that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our drug candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any drugs that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our drug candidates or drugs caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold clinical trial liability insurance coverage, but that coverage may not be adequate to cover any and all liabilities that we may incur. We would need to increase our insurance coverage when we begin the commercialization of our drug candidates, if ever. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

47

Our current and future relationships with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers (actual and potential) and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable healthcare laws and regulations.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers (actual and potential) and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws, including, without limitation:

48

Efforts to ensure that our future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business activities, including our relationships with physician consultants, some of whom may prescribe our product candidates, if approved, in the future, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, which could significantly harm our business.

If we try to obtain approval to commercialize any products outside the United States, many of the same risks that apply to obtaining approvals in the United States will likely apply to such a process, and even if we obtain approval to commercialize any such products outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If we try to obtain approval to commercialize any of our products outside the United States, many of the same risks with respect to obtaining such approvals in the United States will apply to that process. If azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates are approved for commercialization outside of the United States, we intend to enter into agreements with third parties to market them on a worldwide basis or in more limited geographical regions. In that event, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

Risks Relating to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We may not succeed in establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships, which may significantly limit our ability to develop and commercialize our drug candidates successfully, if at all.

We intend to seek collaborative relationships for the development and commercialization of our drug candidates, including azeliragon. Failure to obtain a collaborative relationship for azeliragon, particularly in the European Union and for other markets

49

requiring extensive sales efforts, may significantly impair the potential for this drug candidate. We also will need to enter into collaborative relationships to provide funding to support our other research and development programs. The process of establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships is difficult, time-consuming and involves significant uncertainty, including:

For example, we previously licensed the development of azeliragon to Pfizer Inc. in 2006, before Pfizer determined not to pursue the development of the program, and we reacquired azeliragon in 2011, and Forest Laboratories had previously licensed our GKA programs, including TTP399, but decided to return the GKA programs to us in 2013, shortly before its acquisition by Actavis plc. Any collaborative partners we enter into agreements with in the future may also shift their priorities and resources away from our drug candidates or seek to renegotiate or terminate their relationships with us.

If any collaborator fails to fulfill its responsibilities in a timely manner, or at all, our research, clinical development, manufacturing or commercialization efforts related to that collaboration could be delayed or terminated, or it may be necessary for us to assume responsibility for expenses or activities that would otherwise have been the responsibility of our collaborator. If we are unable to establish and maintain collaborative relationships on acceptable terms or to successfully transition terminated collaborative agreements, we may have to delay or discontinue further development of one or more of our drug candidates, undertake development and commercialization activities at our own expense or find alternative sources of capital.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor certain of our clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.

We rely on contract research organizations (“CROs”) and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of certain of our clinical trials, including the STEADFAST Study. While we have agreements governing their activities, and continue to monitor their compliance with those agreements as well as federal standards and regulations, we have limited influence over their actual performance. We will control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that our clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs are required to comply with the FDA’s good clinical practices requirements (“GCPs”) for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. The FDA enforces these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before

50

approving any marketing applications. Upon inspection, the FDA may determine that our clinical trials did not comply with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials conducted by third parties will require a sufficiently large number of test subjects to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a drug candidate. Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or fail to recruit a sufficient number of patients, our clinical trials may be delayed or we may be required to repeat such clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Our CROs are not our employees, and although we monitor their activities related to our trials, we are not able to control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical trials. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize our drug candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for such drug candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

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

We do not have multiple sources of supply for the components used in azeliragon and our other drug candidates. If we were to lose a supplier, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to complete the development of azeliragon or our other drug candidates. If we obtain regulatory approval for azeliragon or our other drug candidates we would need to expand the supply of its components in order to commercialize them.

We do not have multiple sources of supply for the components used in azeliragon and our other drug candidates. We also do not have long-term supply agreements with any of our suppliers. We are currently evaluating drug manufacturers that will produce the commercial supply of both the drug substance and drug product of azeliragon. It is our expectation that only one supplier of drug substance and one supplier of product will be qualified as vendors with the FDA. If for any reason we are unable to obtain drug substance or drug product from the manufacturers we select, we would have to seek to obtain these from other manufacturers. We may not be able to establish additional sources of supply for our drug candidates, or may be unable to do so on acceptable terms. Such suppliers are subject to regulatory requirements, covering manufacturing, testing, quality control and record keeping relating to our drug candidates and subject to ongoing inspections by the regulatory agencies. Failure by any of our suppliers to comply with applicable regulations may result in long delays and interruptions.

The number of suppliers of the raw material components of our drug candidates is limited. In the event it is necessary or desirable to acquire supplies from an alternative supplier, we might not be able to obtain them on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. It could also require significant time and expense to redesign our manufacturing processes to work with another company.

As part of any marketing approval, a manufacturer and its processes are required to be qualified by the FDA prior to commercialization. If supply from the approved supplier is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply. An alternative vendor would need to be qualified through an NDA amendment or supplement which could result in further delay. The FDA or other regulatory agencies outside of the United States may also require additional studies if a new supplier is relied upon for commercial production. Switching vendors may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

If we are unable to obtain the supplies we need at a reasonable price or on a timely basis, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to complete the development of azeliragon and our other drug candidates or, if we obtain regulatory approval for azeliragon or our other drug candidates, to commercialize them.

We intend to rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our drug candidates. If we experience problems with any of these suppliers, the manufacturing of our drug candidates or products could be delayed.

We do not have the capability to manufacture our drug candidates and do not intend to develop that capability. In order to continue to develop our drug candidates, apply for regulatory approvals and ultimately commercialize products, we need to develop, contract for or otherwise arrange for the necessary manufacturing capabilities. The facilities used by our CMOs to manufacture our drug candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as cGMPs, for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our CMOs cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, although we monitor our

51

suppliers and their compliance with our contractual terms and federal laws and regulations, we do not control the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our drug candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our drug candidates, if approved.

In addition, there are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under the FDA’s cGMP regulations capable of manufacturing our drug candidates. As a result, we may have difficulty finding manufacturers for our drug candidates with adequate capacity for our needs. If we are unable to arrange for third-party manufacturing of our drug candidates on a timely basis, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to complete development of our drug candidates or market them.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we might not be subject if we manufactured drug candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these risks could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our products, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates successfully. Manufacturing of our drug candidates and any approved products could be disrupted or halted if our third-party manufacturers do not comply with cGMP or foreign manufacturing standards, even if the compliance failure does not relate to our drug candidates or approved products. Furthermore, if any of our drug candidates are approved and our third-party manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of finished product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices and we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, in substantially equivalent volumes and quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and could lose potential revenue. It may take several years to establish an alternative source of supply for our drug candidates and to have any such new source approved by the FDA or a foreign regulator.

Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property

It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights, and we may not be able to ensure their protection.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to:

We will be able to protect our proprietary technology from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that such proprietary rights are covered by regulatory exclusivity, valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. Any

52

non-confidential disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential or proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

As of December 31, 2017, we were the owner of record of 64 issued U.S. patents and at least 252 issued non-U.S. patents, as well as the licensee of at least 4 issued U.S. patents and at least 32 issued non-U.S. patents. As of December 31, 2017, we were actively pursuing 14 U.S. patent applications, of which one is provisional and 13 are non-provisional, two Patent Cooperation Treaty applications and at least 97 non-U.S. patent applications in twelve or more jurisdictions as the owner of record, in addition to one non-U.S. patent application under license.

The patent application process, also known as patent prosecution, is expensive and time-consuming, and we and our current or future licensors and licensees may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, these and any of our patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims or inventorship. If we or our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may harm our business.

The patent applications that we own or license may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in other countries. Even if patents do issue on such patent applications, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. For example, U.S. patents can be challenged by any person before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board at any time within the one year period following that person’s receipt of an allegation of infringement of the patents. Patents granted by the European Patent Office may be similarly opposed by any person within nine months from the publication of the grant. Similar proceedings are available in other jurisdictions, and in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions third parties can raise questions of validity with a patent office even before a patent has granted. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is successfully challenged, then our ability to commercialize such product candidates could be negatively affected, and we may face unexpected competition that could harm our business. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we or our collaborators could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

The degree of future protection of our proprietary rights is uncertain. Patent protection may be unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

If we or our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, fail to prosecute, maintain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could be harmed and we might not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

53

Even where laws provide protection, costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and the outcome of such litigation would be uncertain. If we or one of our collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering the product candidate, the defendant could assert an affirmative defense or counterclaim that our patent is not infringed, invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant defenses and counterclaims alleging noninfringement, invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, anticipation or obviousness, and lack of written description, definiteness or enablement. Patents may be unenforceable if someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcomes of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability are unpredictable. It is possible that prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution exists, which would render our patents invalid. Moreover, it is also possible that prior art may exist that we are aware of, but that we do not believe are relevant to our current or future patents, that could nevertheless be determined to render our patents invalid. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability of our patents covering one of our product candidates, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such product candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would harm our business. Moreover, our competitors could counterclaim in any suit to enforce our patents that we infringe their intellectual property. Furthermore, some of our competitors have substantially greater intellectual property portfolios, and resources, than we do.

Our ability to stop third parties from using our technology or making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities. If any patent we currently or in the future may own or license is deemed not infringed, invalid or unenforceable, it could impact our commercial success. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be issued from any patent applications we currently or may in the future own or license from third parties.

To the extent that consultants or key employees apply technological information independently developed by them or by others to our product candidates, disputes may arise as to who has the proprietary rights to such information and product candidates, and certain of such disputes may not be resolved in our favor. Consultants and key employees that work with our confidential and proprietary technologies are required to assign all intellectual property rights in their inventions and discoveries created during the scope of their work to our company. However, these consultants or key employees may terminate their relationship with us, and we cannot preclude them indefinitely from dealing with our competitors.

If we are unable to prevent disclosure of our trade secrets or other confidential information to third parties, our competitive position may be impaired.

We also may rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. Our ability to stop third parties from obtaining the information or know-how necessary to make, use, sell, offer to sell or import our products or practice our technology is dependent in part upon the extent to which we prevent disclosure of the trade secrets that cover these activities. Trade secret rights can be lost through disclosure to third parties. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our trade secrets to third parties, resulting in loss of trade secret protection. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, which would not constitute a violation of our trade secret rights. Enforcing a claim that a third party is engaged in the unlawful use of our trade secrets is expensive, difficult and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, recognition of rights in trade secrets and a willingness to enforce trade secrets differs in certain jurisdictions.

Changes to the patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Recent patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a “first to file” system. The first-to-file provisions, however, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not yet clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult to obtain patent protection for our inventions and increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our collaborators’ issued patents, all of which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

54

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Additionally, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to obtain patent protection for our proprietary technology or our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

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

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing, violating or misappropriating the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Our own technologies may infringe, violate or misappropriate the patents or other proprietary rights of third parties, or we may be subject to third-party claims of such infringement. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. Because some patent applications may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, because publication of patent applications is often delayed, and because publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to invent the technology or that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our pending applications. We may not be aware of patents that have already issued that a third party might assert are infringed by our product candidates. It is also possible that patents of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates, could nevertheless be found to be infringed by our product candidates. Moreover, we may face Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings before the USPTO or patent infringement claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may thus have no deterrent effect. In the future, we may agree to indemnify our manufacturing partners against certain intellectual property claims brought by third parties.

Intellectual property litigation involves many risks and uncertainties, and there is no assurance that we will prevail in any lawsuit brought against us. Third parties making claims against us for infringement, violation or misappropriation of their intellectual property rights may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, would be a substantial diversion of resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of any such infringement, violation or misappropriation, we may need to obtain licenses from such third parties and we and our partners may be prevented from pursuing product development or commercialization and/or may be required to pay damages. We cannot be certain that any licenses required under such patents or proprietary rights would be made available to us, or that any offer to license would be made available to us on commercially reasonable terms. If we cannot obtain such licenses, we and our collaborators may be restricted or prevented from manufacturing and selling products employing our technology. These adverse results, if they occur, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and prospects, and the value of our shares.

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

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have been characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. The defense and prosecution of contractual or intellectual property lawsuits, USPTO interference or derivation proceedings, European Patent Office oppositions and related legal and administrative proceedings in the United States, Europe and other countries, involve complex legal and factual questions. As a result, such proceedings may be costly and time-consuming to pursue and their outcome is uncertain.

Litigation may be necessary to:

55

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover its technology or that the factors necessary to grant an injunction against an infringer are not satisfied. An adverse determination of any litigation or other proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, interpreted narrowly, or amended such that they do not cover our product candidates. Moreover, such adverse determinations could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, or issuing with limited and potentially inadequate scope to cover our product candidates or to prevent others from marketing similar products.

IPR, interference, derivation or other proceedings brought at the USPTO, may be necessary to determine the priority or patentability of inventions with respect to our patent applications or those of our licensors or potential collaborators. Litigation or USPTO proceedings brought by us may fail or may be invoked against us by third parties. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of patent-related disputes, including patent litigation, more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the United States do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, if our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and resources from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our products, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our products. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.

If we do not obtain patent term extensions for our drug candidates, the length of our patent exclusivity will be shorter which may harm our business materially.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of our drug candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term 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 covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory

56

review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. For example, patents providing composition of matter protection for azeliragon are scheduled to expire in 2023, but if we obtain the maximum possible extension in the United States, a period of patent extension for the approved azeliragon product could extend into 2029. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following the original expiration dates of our patents, and our business may be materially harmed.

Risks Relating to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

We will need to expand our operations and increase the size of our company, and we may experience difficulties in managing growth.

As we advance our drug candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials and develop new drug candidates, we will need to increase our product development, scientific and administrative headcount to manage these programs. If we commercialize our products, we may need to expand our staff further, particularly in sales and marketing. See “—Risks Relating to the Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates.” We do not presently have the capability to sell, distribute and market our drug candidates. If we are unable to establish an effective sales force and marketing infrastructure, or enter into acceptable third-party sales and marketing or licensing arrangements, we may not be able to commercialize our drug candidates successfully. In addition, to meet our obligations as a public company, we will need to increase our general and administrative capabilities. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and various projects requires that we:

If we are unable to successfully manage this growth and increased complexity of operations, our business may be adversely affected.

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

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management, finance, scientific and clinical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

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 our executive officers and key employees. If we lose one or more of our executive officers or key personnel, our ability to implement our business strategy successfully could be seriously harmed. Any of our executive officers or key employees may terminate their employment at any time. Replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult, will be costly and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the mix of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products 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. Our failure to attract and retain key personnel could materially harm our business.

Failure to build our finance infrastructure and improve our accounting systems and controls could impair our ability to comply with the financial reporting and internal controls requirements for publicly traded companies.

As a public company, we will operate in an increasingly demanding regulatory environment, which requires us to comply with applicable provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, expanded disclosure requirements, accelerated reporting requirements and more complex accounting rules. Company responsibilities required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act include establishing corporate oversight and adequate internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports and are important to help prevent financial fraud.

57

We may not be able to prepare and disclose, in a timely manner, our financial statements and other required disclosures or comply with the applicable provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or existing or new reporting requirements. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our business and results of operations could be harmed and investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and collaborators may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with legal, compliance or regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and collaborators may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate the regulations of the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, or laws that require the reporting of true and accurate financial information and data. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing, pre-market promotion, 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. These activities also include the improper use or disclosure of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted new comprehensive compliance policies, and revised our code of conduct, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee or non-employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant 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 profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations.

Other Risks Relating to Our Business

We may use our financial and human resources to pursue a particular research program or drug candidate and fail to capitalize on programs or drug candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to focus primarily on the regulatory approval of azeliragon, including the completion of the STEADFAST Study. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug candidates or for other indications that later 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 existing and future drug candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular drug candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that drug candidate through strategic alliance, 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 such drug candidate, or we may allocate internal resources to a drug candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a partnering arrangement.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of any future products we develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our drug candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product 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 and 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 products. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

58

Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of azeliragon or any future products we develop. We currently carry clinical trial liability insurance in the amount of $10.0 million in the aggregate. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing azeliragon, or another product, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of azeliragon, or the other new product, however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms.

Our operations involve hazardous materials, which could subject us to significant liabilities.

Our research and development processes involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including medical waste. Our operations produce hazardous waste products. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or discharge or injury from these materials. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials. We could be subject to civil damages in the event of exposure of individuals to hazardous materials. In addition, claimants may sue us for injury or contamination that results from our use of these materials and our liability may exceed our total assets. We have general liability and umbrella insurance of up to $6.0 million per occurrence, with an annual aggregate limit of $7.0 million, which excludes pollution liability. This coverage may not be adequate to cover all claims related to our hazardous materials. Furthermore, if we were to be held liable for a claim involving hazardous materials, this liability could exceed our insurance coverage, if any, and our other financial resources. Compliance with environmental and other laws and regulations may be expensive and current or future regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

Our insurance policies are expensive and protect us only from some business risks, which will leave us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities.

We do not carry insurance for all categories of risk that our business may encounter. Some of the policies we currently maintain include general liability, employment practices liability, property, auto, workers’ compensation, umbrella, clinical trial and directors’ and officers’ insurance. We do not know, however, if we will be able to maintain existing insurance with adequate levels of coverage. Any significant uninsured liability may require us to pay substantial amounts, which would adversely affect our cash position and results of operations.

The market for our proposed products is rapidly changing and competitive, and new drugs and new treatments that may be developed by others could impair our ability to maintain and grow our businesses and remain competitive.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are subject to rapid and substantial technological change. Developments by others may render proposed products noncompetitive or obsolete, or we may be unable to keep pace with technological developments or other market factors. Technological competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and others diversifying into the field is intense and is expected to increase.

As a company with nominal revenues engaged in the development of drug technologies, our resources are limited, and we may experience technical challenges inherent in such technologies. Competitors have developed or are in the process of developing technologies that are, or in the future may be, the basis for competition. Some of these technologies may have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing similar therapeutic effects compared to our proposed products. Our competitors may develop drugs that are safer, more effective or less costly than our proposed products and, therefore, present a serious competitive threat to us.

59

The potential widespread acceptance of therapies that are alternatives to ours may limit market acceptance of our drug candidates, even if commercialized. Some of our targeted diseases and conditions can also be treated by other medication. These treatments may be widely accepted in medical communities and have a longer history of use or be offered at a more competitive price. The established use of these competitive drugs may limit the potential for our technologies, formulations and products to receive widespread acceptance if commercialized.

Therefore, changes in the market for our products and the availability of new or alternative treatments could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial conditions and results of operations.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Also, confidential patient and other information may be compromised in a cyber-attack or cyber-intrusion. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed.

We may be subject to foreign exchange fluctuations.

Our functional and reporting currency is the United States dollar. A portion of our expenditures are in foreign currencies, most notably in Canadian dollars, and therefore we are subject to foreign currency fluctuations, which may, from time to time, impact our financial position and results.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

MacAndrews has substantial influence over our business, and their interests may differ from our interests or those of our other stockholders.

MacAndrews holds, directly or indirectly, a majority of our combined voting power. Due to its ownership and rights under our investor rights agreement, amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, MacAndrews has the power to control us and our subsidiaries, including the power to:

The interests of MacAndrews may differ from our interests or those of our other stockholders and the concentration of control in MacAndrews will limit other stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters. The concentration of ownership and voting power with MacAndrews may also delay, defer or even prevent an acquisition by a third party or other change of control of our company and may make some transactions more difficult or impossible without the support of MacAndrews, even if such events are in the best interests of our other stockholders. The concentration of voting power with MacAndrews may have an adverse effect on the price of our Class A common stock. Our company may take actions that our other stockholders do not view as beneficial, which may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and cause the value of our Class A common stock to decline.

60

Our directors who have relationships with MacAndrews may have conflicts of interest with respect to matters involving our company.

Half of our directors are affiliated with MacAndrews. These persons will have fiduciary duties to us and in addition will have duties to MacAndrews. In addition, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that none of MacAndrews, any of our non-employee directors who are employees, affiliates or consultants of MacAndrews or its affiliates (other than us or our subsidiaries) or any of their respective affiliates will be liable to us or our stockholders for breach of any fiduciary duty by reason of the fact that any such individual directs a corporate opportunity to MacAndrews or its affiliates instead of us, or does not communicate information regarding a corporate opportunity to us that such person or affiliate has directed to MacAndrews or its affiliates. As a result, such circumstances may entail real or apparent conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting both us and MacAndrews, whose interests, in some circumstances, may be adverse to ours. In addition, as a result of MacAndrews’ indirect ownership interest, conflicts of interest could arise with respect to transactions involving business dealings between us and MacAndrews or their affiliates, including potential business transactions, potential acquisitions of businesses or properties, the issuance of additional securities, the payment of dividends by us and other matters.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our Class A common stock, and accordingly, stockholders must rely on stock appreciation for any return on their investment.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividend on our Class A common stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our Class A common stock in the future. In addition, our Loan Agreement includes restrictive covenants which prevent us from paying dividends to our stockholders. As a result, the only return to stockholders will be appreciation in the price of our Class A common stock, which may never occur. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our Class A common stock.

Our share price may be volatile, which could subject us to securities class action litigation and result in substantial losses for our stockholders.

The market price of shares of our Class A common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this section, and others beyond our control, including:

61

Furthermore, the stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies.  These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies.  These broad market and industry fluctuations, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions, interest rate changes or international currency fluctuations, may negatively impact the market price of shares of our Class A common stock. In addition, such fluctuations could subject us to securities class action litigation, which could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could potentially harm our business. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price at which they purchased their shares.

An active trading market for our Class A common stock may not be sustained.

Our shares of Class A common stock began trading on The NASDAQ Global Market on July 30, 2015. Given the limited trading history of our Class A common stock, there is a risk that an active trading market for our shares will not be sustained, which could put downward pressure on the market price of our Class A common stock and thereby affect the ability of our stockholders to sell their shares.

The trading market for our Class A common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business.

The price of our stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our stock or issue other unfavorable commentary or research. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

A substantial portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market at any time. This could cause the market price of our Class A common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is doing well.

The market price of our Class A common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our Class A common stock or the perception that such sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate.

As of December 31, 2017, MacAndrews and its affiliates hold 23,084,267 non-voting common units of vTv LLC (“vTv Units”) and the same number of shares of vTv Therapeutics Inc. Class B common stock as well as an aggregate of 2,615,666 shares of our Class A common stock. As a result, MacAndrews and its affiliates hold shares representing approximately 78.3% of the combined voting power of our outstanding common stock. Pursuant to the terms of the Exchange Agreement among the Company, vTv LLC and the holders of vTv Units party thereto (the “Exchange Agreement”), vTv Units (along with the corresponding number of shares of our Class B common stock) will be exchangeable for (i) shares of our Class A common stock on a one-for-one basis or (ii) cash (based on the market price of the shares of Class A common stock), at our option (as the managing member of vTv Therapeutics LLC). Shares of our Class A common stock issuable upon an exchange of vTv Units as described above would be considered “restricted securities,” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act, unless the exchange is registered under the Securities Act.

In December 2017, we entered into the Letter Agreement with MacAndrews. Under the Letter Agreement, until December 5, 2018, we have the right to sell to MacAndrews shares of our Class A common stock at a price equal to $4.38 per share, and MacAndrews has the right (exercisable up to three times) to require us to sell to it shares of Class A common stock at the same price.  An aggregate of $10.0 million worth of Class A common stock may be sold under the Letter Agreement (whether at our or MacAndrews’ option).  In addition, in connection with the Letter Agreement, we also issued MacAndrews warrants to purchase 198,267 shares of our Class A common stock at a price of $5.04 per share, exercisable until December 5, 2024.  Sales of shares of Class A common stock to MacAndrews under the Letter Agreement or pursuant to the exercise of the related warrants (or resales by MacAndrews of such shares) could negatively affect our stock price, as could the anticipation of such sales or resales.

On August 13, 2015, we filed a registration statement under the Securities Act registering 3,250,000 shares of our Class A common stock reserved for issuance under our 2015 Plan.  As part of our Loan Agreement, we issued warrants to purchase 190,586 shares of our Class A common stock to our lenders.  

Further, we have entered into an investor rights agreement with an affiliate of MacAndrews providing certain governance and registration rights.

62

Future sales and issuances of our Class A common stock or rights to purchase Class A common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, the exercise of outstanding warrants or pursuant to the Loan Agreement or the Letter Agreement, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell Class A common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, including under the Letter Agreement and related warrants, and such sales could result in substantial dilution to existing investors.

In addition, under the Loan Agreement the Lenders have the right to purchase shares of our Class A common stock from us, at a discounted price, with a value up to $1.0 million in the event that we conduct a public offering in which we receive cash proceeds of at least $10.0 million.  If we sell Class A common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, the percentage ownership of our stockholders will be diluted. In addition, new investors could gain rights superior to our existing stockholders.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and are taking advantage of reduced disclosure requirements applicable to “emerging growth companies,” which could make our Class A common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), and, for as long as we continue to be an “emerging growth company,” we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, 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 could be an “emerging growth company” for up to five years from the date of our initial public offering, or until the earliest of (i) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues exceed $1.07 billion, (ii) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our Class A common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three year period. We cannot predict if investors will find our Class A common stock less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our Class A common stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our Class A common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We will incur significantly increased costs and devote substantial management time as a result of operating as a public company particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

As a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. For example, we are required to comply with certain of the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as rules and regulations subsequently implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and NASDAQ, our stock exchange, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. We expect that compliance with these requirements will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time consuming and costly. In addition, our management and other personnel will need to divert attention from operational and other business matters to devote substantial time to these public company requirements. In particular, we expect to incur significant expenses and devote substantial management effort toward ensuring compliance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In that regard, we currently do not have an internal audit function.

However, for as long as we remain an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, 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 intend to take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

Under the JOBS Act, “emerging growth companies” can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.”

63

After we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” we expect to incur additional management time and cost to comply with the more stringent reporting requirements applicable to companies that are deemed accelerated filers or large accelerated filers, including complying with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

We are exempt from certain corporate governance requirements since we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NASDAQ rules, and as a result our stockholders will not have the protections afforded by these corporate governance requirements.

MacAndrews controls more than 50% of our combined voting power. As a result, we are considered a “controlled company” for the purposes of NASDAQ rules and corporate governance standards, and therefore are permitted to elect not to comply with certain NASDAQ corporate governance requirements, including those that would otherwise require our Board of Directors to have a majority of independent directors and require that we either establish compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees, each comprised entirely of independent directors, or otherwise ensure that the compensation of our executive officers and nominees for directors are determined or recommended to the Board of Directors by the independent members of the Board of Directors. Accordingly, holders of our Class A common stock do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the NASDAQ rules and corporate governance standards, and the ability of our independent directors to influence our business policies and affairs may be reduced.

Provisions in our charter and bylaws and provisions of Delaware law may delay or prevent our acquisition by a third party, which might diminish the value of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain several provisions that may make it more difficult or expensive for a third party to acquire control of us without the approval of the Board of Directors. These provisions also may delay, prevent or deter a merger, acquisition, tender offer, proxy contest or other transaction that might otherwise result in our stockholders receiving a premium over the market price for their common stock. The provisions include, among others:

Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law may affect the ability of an “interested stockholder” to engage in certain business combinations, including mergers, consolidations or acquisitions of additional shares, for a period of three years following the time that the stockholder becomes an “interested stockholder.” An “interested stockholder” is defined to include persons owning directly or indirectly 15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of a corporation. We have elected in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation not to be subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Nevertheless, the amended and restated certificate of incorporation contains provisions that have the same effect as Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, except that they provide that MacAndrews and its various successors and affiliates (and transferees of any of them) will not be deemed to be “interested stockholders,” regardless of the percentage of our stock owned by them, and accordingly will not be subject to such restrictions.

The provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, the significant common stock ownership of MacAndrews and the ability of the Board of Directors to create and issue a new series of preferred stock or implement a stockholder rights plan could discourage potential takeover attempts and reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future, which could reduce the market price of our common stock.

We will be required to pay M&F TTP Holdings Two LLC (“M&F”) for certain tax benefits we may claim. In certain circumstances, payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement may be accelerated and/or significantly exceed the actual tax benefits we realize.

The only asset of the Company is its interest in vTv LLC. Class B common stock, together with the corresponding number of vTv Units, may be exchanged for shares of our Class A common stock, or for cash, at our option (as the managing member of vTv LLC). These exchanges of Class B common stock, together with the corresponding number of vTv LLC Units, may result in increases in the tax basis of the assets of vTv LLC that otherwise would not have been available. Such increases in tax basis are likely to increase (for tax purposes) depreciation and amortization deductions and therefore reduce the amount of income tax we would otherwise be required to pay in the future and may also decrease gain (or increase loss) on future dispositions of certain assets to the extent the increased tax

64

basis is allocated to those assets. The IRS may challenge all or part of these tax basis increases and a court could sustain such a challenge.

We have entered into a Tax Receivable Agreement with vTv Therapeutics Holdings (an entity which was dissolved in October 2015, but to which M&F became a successor) that will provide for the payment by us to M&F (or certain of its transferees or other assignees) of 85% of the amount of cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state and local income tax or franchise tax that we actually realize (or, in some circumstances, we are deemed to realize) as a result of (a) the exchange of Class B common stock, together with the corresponding number of vTv Units, for shares of our Class A common stock (or for cash), (b) tax benefits related to imputed interest deemed to be paid by us as a result of the Tax Receivable Agreement and (c) certain tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. Although the actual increase in tax basis and the amount and timing of any payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement will vary depending upon a number of factors, including the timing of exchanges, the price of shares of our Class A common stock at the time of the exchange, the nature of the assets, the extent to which such exchanges are taxable, the tax rates then applicable, and the amount and timing of our income, we expect that the payments that we may make to M&F could be substantial.

M&F generally will not reimburse us for any payments that may previously have been made under the Tax Receivable Agreement even if the IRS subsequently disallows the tax basis increase or any other relevant tax item. Instead, any excess cash payments made by us to M&F will be netted against any future cash payments that we might otherwise be required to make under the terms of the Tax Receivable Agreement. However, we might not determine that we have effectively made an excess cash payment to M&F for a number of years following the initial time of such payment. As a result, in certain circumstances we could make payments to M&F under the Tax Receivable Agreement in excess of our cash tax savings. Our ability to achieve benefits from any tax basis increase and the payments to be made under the Tax Receivable Agreement, will depend upon a number of factors, including the timing and amount of our future income and the nature of our assets.

To the extent that we are unable to make payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement for any reason, such payments will be deferred and will accrue interest until paid. In addition, the Tax Receivable Agreement provides that, upon a merger, asset sale or other form of business combination or certain other changes of control or if, at any time, we elect an early termination of the Tax Receivable Agreement, our (or our successor’s) obligations under the Tax Receivable Agreement with respect to exchanged or acquired Class B common stock, together with the corresponding number of vTv Units (whether exchanged or acquired before or after such change of control or early termination), would be required to be paid significantly in advance of the actual realization, if any, of any future tax benefits and would be based on certain assumptions, including that we would have sufficient taxable income to fully utilize the deductions arising from the increased tax deductions and tax basis and other benefits related to entering into the Tax Receivable Agreement, and, in the case of certain early termination elections, that any Class B common stock, together with the corresponding number of vTv Units, that have not been exchanged will be deemed exchanged for the market value of the Class A common stock at the time of termination. Consequently, it is possible that the actual cash tax savings realized by us may be significantly less than the corresponding Tax Receivable Agreement payments.

The only asset of the Company is its interest in vTv LLC, and accordingly it will depend on distributions from vTv LLC to pay taxes and expenses, including payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. vTv LLC’s ability to make such distributions may be subject to various limitations and restrictions.

The Company is a holding company, has no material assets other than its ownership of vTv Units and has no independent means of generating revenue or cash flow. vTv LLC is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, as such, is not subject to any entity-level U.S. federal income tax. Instead, taxable income will be allocated to holders of its common units, including us. As a result, we will incur U.S. federal, state and local income taxes on our allocable share of any net taxable income of vTv LLC. Under the terms of vTv LLC’s Amended and Restated LLC Agreement, vTv LLC will be obligated to make tax distributions to holders of its common units, including us. In addition to tax expenses, we will also incur expenses related to our operations, including expenses under the Tax Receivable Agreement, which could be significant. We intend, as its managing member, to cause vTv LLC to make distributions in an amount sufficient to allow us to pay our taxes and operating expenses, including any payments due under the Tax Receivable Agreement. However, vTv LLC’s ability to make such distributions may be subject to various limitations and restrictions including, but not limited to, restrictions on distributions that would either violate any contract or agreement to which vTv LLC is then a party, including the Loan Agreement or any other potential debt agreements, or any applicable law, or that would have the effect of rendering vTv LLC insolvent. If vTv LLC does not distribute sufficient funds for us to pay our taxes or other liabilities, we may have to borrow funds, which could adversely affect our liquidity and subject us to various restrictions imposed by any such lenders. To the extent that we are unable to make payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement for any reason, such payments will be deferred and will accrue interest until paid.

65

Our organizational structure confers certain benefits upon M&F and certain of its successors and assigns that will not benefit Class A common stockholders to the same extent as it will benefit M&F.

Our organizational structure, including the fact that M&F owns more than 50% of the voting power of our outstanding voting stock and owns part of its economic interest in our business through vTv LLC, confers certain benefits upon M&F that will not benefit the holders of our Class A common stock to the same extent as it will benefit M&F. For example, the Tax Receivable Agreement will provide for the payment by us to M&F (or certain of its transferees or other assignees) of 85% of the amount of cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state and local income tax or franchise tax that we actually realize (or, in some circumstances, we are deemed to realize) as a result of (a) the exchange of Class B common stock, together with the corresponding number of vTv Units, for shares of our Class A common stock (or for cash), (b) tax benefits related to imputed interest deemed to be paid by us as a result of the Tax Receivable Agreement and (c) certain tax benefits attributable to payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement. Although we will retain 15% of the amount of such tax benefits, it is possible that the interests of M&F may in some circumstances conflict with our interests and the interests of our other stockholders. For example, M&F may have different tax positions from us, especially in light of the Tax Receivable Agreement, that could influence their decisions regarding whether and when we should dispose of assets, whether and when we should incur new or refinance existing indebtedness, and whether and when we should terminate the Tax Receivable Agreement and accelerate our obligations thereunder. In addition, the determination of future tax reporting positions, the structuring of future transactions and the handling of any future challenges by any taxing authority to our tax reporting positions may take into consideration M&F’s tax or other considerations, which may differ from the considerations of us or our other stockholders. To the extent that M&F is dissolved or liquidated, MacAndrews and/or its affiliates will succeed to the rights and obligations of M&F under the Tax Receivable Agreement, and the same considerations described above apply to any such successor parties.

None.

Our corporate headquarters and lab facilities are located in High Point, North Carolina, where we lease 32,776 square feet of mixed laboratory and office space in the Mendenhall Oaks office park. The lease agreement for this space continues through December 2019.

We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our current and expected future needs. We may seek to negotiate new leases or look for additional or alternate space for our operations. We believe that appropriate alternative space is readily available at similar rents.

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

None.

66

PART II

Market Information

Our Class A common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “VTVT”.  The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices per share for our Class A common stock, as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market for the periods indicated:

Dividend Policy

No cash dividends have ever been declared or paid on the common equity to date by the Company.  Our ability to pay dividends is restricted by our Loan Agreement.  See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Item 7.

Holders

As of February 23, 2018, there were approximately 21 holders of record of our Class A common stock and 9 holders of record of our Class B common stock. Because almost all of the shares of our Class A common stock are held by brokers, nominees and other institutions on behalf of shareholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of shareholders represented by these record holders.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table summarizes information about our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2017.  The only awards that have been granted under the plan below are in the form of option and restricted stock unit awards related to our Class A common stock:

67

Performance Graph

The following graph shows a comparison from July 30, 2015 (the date our Class A common stock commenced trading on The NASDAQ Global Market) through December 31, 2017 of the cumulative total return for our Class A common stock, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index and the NASDAQ Composite Index.  The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 on July 30, 2015.  The comparisons in the graph are not intended to forecast or be indicative of possible future performance of our common stock.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

There have been no repurchases of the Company’s common stock during the fourth fiscal quarter of fiscal 2017.

68

The following selected financial data should be read together with the information under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and the notes to those financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  The selected statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 and balance sheet data as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 set forth below have been derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  The selected statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 set forth below has been derived from the audited financial statements for such year not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  The historical periods presented here are not necessarily indicative of future results.

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with “Selected Financial Data” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements based upon current beliefs, plans and expectations that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, such as statements regarding our plans, objectives, expectations, intentions and projections. Our actual results and the timing of selected events could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of several factors, including those set forth in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. See the sections entitled “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

69

Company Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of orally administered small molecule drug candidates to fill significant unmet medical needs. We have a powerful pipeline of clinical drug candidates, led by our programs for the treatment of mild Alzheimer’s disease (“AD”) and diabetes. Our drug candidate for the treatment of mild AD, azeliragon (TTP488), is an orally administered, small molecule antagonist targeting the receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (“RAGE”), for which we have completed enrollment of both sub-studies for a Phase 3 clinical trial (the “STEADFAST Study”) under a Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) agreed Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”).

Our diabetes drug candidates include TTP399, an orally administered, liver-selective glucokinase activator (“GKA”), for which we have completed our Phase 2b clinical trial in type 2 diabetes (the “AGATA Study”), and TTP273, an orally administered, non-peptide agonist that targets the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (“GLP-1r”), for which we have completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in type 2 diabetes (the “LOGRA Study”) in December 2016.

In August 2017, we entered into a research, development and commercialization agreement with JDRF International (“JDRF”) (the “JDRF Agreement”) to support the funding of the simplici-T1 Study, an adaptive Phase 1b/2 study to explore the effects of TTP399 in type 1 diabetics.  This trial was initiated in the fourth quarter of 2017.  According to the terms of the JDRF Agreement, JDRF will provide research funding of up to $3.0 million based on the achievement of research and development milestones, with the total funding provided by JDRF not to exceed approximately one-half of the total cost of the project.  Additionally, we have the obligation to make certain milestone payments to JDRF upon the commercialization, licensing, sale or transfer of TTP399 as a treatment for type 1 diabetes.

In December 2017, we entered into a License Agreement with Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Huadong”) (the “Huadong License Agreement”), under which Huadong obtained an exclusive and sublicensable license to develop and commercialize our glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (“GLP-1r”) program, including the compound TTP273, in China and certain other Pacific Rim countries, including Australia and South Korea.

We also entered into a License Agreement with Reneo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Reneo”) (the “Reneo License Agreement”) in December 2017, under which Reneo obtained an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize our peroxisome proliferation activated receptor delta agonist program, including the compound HPP593.

For more information regarding the JDRF Agreement, the Huadong License Agreement and Reneo License Agreement, see Item 1 – “Business – Intellectual Property – License and Research Agreements”.

In addition to the above, we also have two additional programs in various stages of preclinical and clinical development for the treatment of inflammatory disorders.

Subsequent to our initial public offering (the “IPO”) and the related reorganization transactions (the “Reorganization Transactions”), vTv Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”, the “Registrant”, “we” or “us”) is a holding company, and its principal asset is a controlling equity interest in vTv Therapeutics LLC (“vTv LLC”), the Company’s principal operating subsidiary. The Company has determined that vTv LLC is a variable-interest entity (“VIE”) for accounting purposes and that vTv Therapeutics Inc. is the primary beneficiary of vTv LLC because (through its managing member interest in vTv LLC and the fact that the senior management of vTv Therapeutics Inc. is also the senior management of vTv LLC) it has the power to direct all of the activities of vTv LLC, which include those that most significantly impact vTv LLC’s economic performance. vTv Therapeutics Inc. has therefore consolidated vTv LLC’s results under the VIE accounting model in its Consolidated Financial Statements.

As the Reorganization Transactions were considered to be among entities under common control, the Consolidated Financial Statements for periods prior to the IPO and Reorganization Transactions have been adjusted to combine vTvx Holdings I LLC (formerly known as TransTech Pharma, LLC, “TTP” or “vTvx Holdings I”) and vTvx Holdings II LLC (formerly known as and High Point Pharmaceuticals, LLC, “HPP” or “vTvx Holdings II” and, collectively with TTP or vTvx Holdings I, the “Predecessors”) for presentation purposes.

To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to our research and development efforts relating to our investigational drug candidates, including conducting clinical trials with our drug candidates, providing general and administrative support for these operations and protecting our intellectual property. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from drug sales. From our inception through December 31, 2017, we (including our Predecessors) have funded our operations primarily through:

70

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for at least the next several years. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

We do not expect to generate revenue from drug sales unless and until we successfully complete development and obtain marketing approval for one or more of our drug candidates, which we expect will take a number of years and will be subject to significant uncertainty. Accordingly, we will need to raise additional capital prior to the commercialization of azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates. Until such time that we can generate substantial revenue from product sales, we expect to finance our operating activities through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. Nevertheless, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed, on favorable terms or at all, which would have a negative impact on our liquidity and financial condition and could force us to delay, reduce the scope or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs or commercialization efforts. Failure to receive additional funding could cause us to cease operations, in part or in full.

Financial Overview

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from drug sales. Our revenue has been primarily derived from up-front proceeds and research fees under collaboration and license agreements.

In the future, we may generate revenue from a combination of product sales, license fees, milestone payments and royalties from the sales of products developed under licenses of our intellectual property. We expect that any revenue we generate will fluctuate from quarter to quarter as a result of the timing and amount of license fees, milestone and other payments, and the amount and timing of payments that we receive upon the sale of our products, to the extent any are successfully commercialized. If we fail to complete the development of our drug candidates in a timely manner or obtain regulatory approval for them, our ability to generate future revenue and our results of operations and financial position will be materially adversely affected.

71

Research and Development Expenses

Since our inception, we have focused our resources on our research and development activities, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, manufacturing development efforts and activities related to regulatory filings for our drug candidates. We recognize research and development expenses as they are incurred. Our direct research and development expenses consist primarily of external costs such as fees paid to investigators, consultants, central laboratories and clinical research organizations (“CRO(s)”), in connection with our clinical trials, and costs related to acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials.  Our indirect research and development costs consist primarily of salaries, benefits and related overhead expenses for personnel in research and development functions and depreciation of leasehold improvements, laboratory equipment and computers.  Since we typically use our employee and infrastructure resources across multiple research and development programs such costs are not allocated to the individual projects.

From the inception of our Predecessors, through December 31, 2017, we have incurred approximately $541.9 million in research and development expenses.

Our research and development expenses by project for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were as follows (in thousands):

We plan to increase our research and development expenses for the foreseeable future as we continue the development of azeliragon and to further advance the development of our other drug candidates, subject to the availability of additional funding.

The successful development of our clinical and preclinical drug candidates is highly uncertain. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the nature, timing or costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the remainder of the development of any of our clinical or preclinical drug candidates or the period, if any, in which material net cash inflows from these drug candidates may commence. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of our drug candidates, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of a drug candidate could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of that drug candidate. For example, if the FDA or another regulatory authority were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate will be required for the completion of clinical development of a drug candidate, or if we experience significant delays in enrollment in any of our clinical trials, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time with respect to the development of that drug candidate.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries, benefits and related costs for employees in executive, finance, corporate development, human resources and administrative support functions. Other significant general and administrative expenses

72

include accounting and legal services, expenses associated with obtaining and maintaining patents, cost of various consultants, occupancy costs and information systems.

Our general and administrative expenses have increased and will continue to increase as we operate as a public company and commercialize our drug candidates. Such increases have been driven by higher costs for director and officer liability insurance, costs related to the hiring of additional personnel and increased fees for outside consultants, lawyers and accountants.

Interest Expense, Net

For periods prior to the IPO and Reorganization Transactions, interest expense, net primarily consists of interest expense attributable to certain obligations that were not assumed by vTv Therapeutics Inc. through the Reorganization Transactions.  Beginning in October 2016, interest expense, net primarily consists of our cash and non-cash interest expense related to our Loan Agreement. Cash interest on the Loan Agreement is recognized at a floating interest rate equal to 10.5% plus the amount by which the one-month London Interbank Offer Rate (“LIBOR”) exceeds 0.5%.  Non-cash interest expense represents the amortization of the costs incurred in connection with the Loan Agreement, the allocated fair value of the warrants to purchase shares of our Class A Common Stock issued in connection with the Loan Agreement (the “Warrants”) and the accretion of the final interest payment (which will be paid in cash upon loan maturity), all of which are recognized in our Consolidated Statement of Operations using the effective interest method.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net primarily consists of expenses related to our capital structure prior to the IPO and Reorganization Transactions, such as expense related to interest expense on related party debt obligations and the change in the fair value of an obligation to make distributions to a former officer in exchange for the repurchase of the officer’s predecessor company units (the “Contingent Distributions”). Such expenses have not been recognized by us after fiscal 2015 as the related instruments were not assumed by vTv Therapeutics Inc. through the Reorganization Transactions.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2017 and 2016

The following table sets forth certain information concerning our results of operations for the periods shown:

Revenues

Revenues were $0.3 million and $0.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The revenue earned during the year ended December 31, 2017 primarily relates to the Huadong and Reneo License Agreements, which were entered into in December 2017.  The revenue earned during the year ended December 31, 2016 was primarily attributable to the global license agreement that we entered into with Calithera in March 2015.  We recognize the portion of the consideration received allocated to the license deliverable for each of these agreements over the requisite knowledge transfer or research service periods.  The portion of revenue allocated to the other deliverables under the license agreements will be recognized as performance occurs.

73

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses were $39.6 million and $45.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The decrease in research and development expenses during the period of $6.1 million, or 13.4%, was primarily due to:

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses were $11.3 million and $9.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The increase in general and administrative expenses during this period of $1.4 million, or 14.4%, was primarily due to increases in professional and legal fees of $0.3 million primarily related to the license agreements entered into in 2017 coupled with increases in compensation costs of approximately $0.9 million due to grants of additional share-based compensation awards as well as the impact of additional personnel hired in both years.

Interest Expense, Net

Interest expense, net was $3.1 million and $0.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Interest expense primarily relates to our Loan Agreement which was entered into in late October 2016 and which bears interest at 10.5% plus the amount by which the one-month LIBOR exceeds 0.5%.  The increase in such interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2017 relates to both the borrowing of the second tranche in March 2017 as well as the period of time for which the loan was outstanding in each year.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015

The following table sets forth certain information concerning our results of operations for the periods shown:

74

Revenues

Revenues were $0.6 million and $0.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The revenue earned during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 was primarily attributable to the global license agreement that we entered into with Calithera Biosciences, Inc. (“Calithera”) in March 2015.  In connection with this agreement we recognized as revenue an initial license fee of $0.6 million and reimbursement of costs associated with the time devoted by our employees to develop additional hexokinase inhibitors.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses were $45.7 million and $29.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The increase in research and development expenses during the period of $16.2 million, or 54.6%, was primarily due to:

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses were $9.9 million and $9.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The increase in general and administrative expenses during this period of $0.8 million, or 9.1%, was primarily due to a $2.1 million increase in compensation costs related to the addition of personnel to support our compliance with public company requirements and the expense related to share-based awards.  Such increase was offset by reductions in legal and professional service expenses of $1.4 million as such expenses were higher in 2015 as we prepared for our IPO.

Interest Expense, Net

Interest expense, net was $0.4 million and $0.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Interest expense recognized in 2016 relates to our Loan Agreement which was entered into in late October 2016 and which bears interest at 10.5% plus the amount by which the one-month LIBOR exceeds 0.5%.  

Other Expense, Net

Other expense, net primarily consisted of expenses related to our capital structure prior to the IPO and Reorganization Transactions, such as related party interest expense and other expense related to the change in the fair value of contingent distribution liability. Such expenses will no longer be recognized by us after fiscal 2015 as many of the related instruments were not assumed by vTv Therapeutics Inc. through the Reorganization Transactions.  Included in this amount is interest expense, net recognized for transactions with related parties under these prior agreements in 2015 was $1.7 million.  In addition, we recognized other income of $0.7 million as a result of the decrease in the fair value of the contingent distribution liability during the year ended December 31, 2015.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Liquidity and Going Concern

As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $279.1 million.  Since the inception of our Predecessors, we have experienced a history of negative cash flows from operating activities.  We anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the

75

foreseeable future as we continue our clinical trials. Further, we expect that we will need additional capital to continue to fund our operations.  Our currently available sources of liquidity include our unrestricted balance of cash and cash equivalents of $11.8 million at December 31, 2017, the $7.2 million upfront payment receivable from our Huadong License Agreement, net of applicable foreign withholding taxes, and the $10.0 million of funds available under the Letter Agreement.  Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our current cash and cash equivalents will allow us to meet our liquidity requirements through the receipt of top-line results for Subpart A of our STEADFAST Study which we anticipate receiving in April 2018.  These factors raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.  In addition to available cash and cash equivalents, we are seeking possible partnering opportunities for our GKA, GLP-1r and other drug candidates which we believe may provide additional cash for use in our operations and the continuation of the clinical trials for our drug candidates.  We may also pursue other sources of additional financing to provide flexibility to our operating plan.  The timing and availability of such additional financing is not yet known.    

Equity Financing

In December 2017, we entered into the Letter Agreement with MacAndrews.  Under the Letter Agreement, until December 5, 2018, we have the right to sell to MacAndrews shares of our Class A common stock at a price equal to $4.38 per share, and MacAndrews has the right (exercisable up to three times) to require us to sell to it shares of Class A common stock at the same price.  An aggregate of $10.0 million worth of Class A common stock may be sold under the Letter Agreement (whether at our or MacAndrews’ option).  In addition, in connection with the Letter Agreement, we also issued to MacAndrews warrants to purchase 198,267 shares of our Class A common stock at a price of $5.04 per share, exercisable until December 5, 2024.

Debt Transaction

In October 2016, we and vTv LLC entered into the Loan Agreement with Horizon Technology Finance Corporation and Silicon Valley Bank, under which we have borrowed $20.0 million.  Each loan tranche bears interest at a floating rate equal to 10.5% plus the amount by which the one-month LIBOR exceeds 0.5%.  

We borrowed the first tranche of $12.5 million upon the close of the Loan Agreement in October 2016.  The first tranche requires only monthly interest payments until May 1, 2018, followed by equal monthly payments of principal plus accrued interest through the scheduled maturity date on May 1, 2020.  In addition, a final payment for the first tranche loan equal to $0.8 million will be due on May 1, 2020, or such earlier date specified in the Loan Agreement.  We borrowed the second tranche of $7.5 million in March 2017.  The second tranche requires only monthly interest payments until October 1, 2018, followed by equal monthly payments of principal plus accrued interest through the scheduled maturity date on October 1, 2020.  In addition, a final payment for the second tranche loan equal to $0.5 million will be due on October 1, 2020, or such earlier date specified in the Loan Agreement.  The availability of the third tranche of $5.0 million expired unused on June 30, 2017.  

If we repay all or a portion of the loan prior to the applicable maturity date, we will pay the Lenders a prepayment penalty fee, based on a percentage of the then outstanding principal balance equal to 4.0% during the first 18 months following the funding of the second tranche and 2.0% thereafter.

In connection with the Loan Agreement, we have issued to the Lenders warrants to purchase shares of our Class A common stock (the “Warrants”).  On October 28, 2016, we issued Warrants to purchase 152,580 shares of our Class A common stock at a per share exercise price of $6.39 per share, which aggregate exercise price represents 6.0% of the principal amount borrowed under the first tranche of the Loan Agreement and 3.0% of the amount available under the second tranche of the Loan Agreement. On March 24, 2017, in connection with the funding of the second tranche, we issued Warrants to purchase 38,006 shares of our Class A common stock at a per share exercise price of $5.92 per share, which aggregate exercise price represents 3.0% of the principal amount of the second tranche. In each instance, the Warrants have an exercise price equal to the lower of (a) the volume weighted average price per share of our Class A common stock, as reported on the principal stock exchange on which our Class A common stock is listed, for 10 trading days prior to the issuance of the applicable Warrants or (b) the closing price of a share of our Class A common stock on the trading day prior to the issuance of the applicable Warrants.  The Warrants will expire seven years from their date of issuance.

The Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and restrictive covenants, including, but not limited to, restrictions on the payment of dividends or other equity distributions and the incurrence of debt or liens upon the assets of the Company or its subsidiaries.  The Loan Agreement does not contain any financial maintenance covenants other than a requirement to maintain a minimum cash balance of not less than $2.5 million in a deposit account pledged to secure the Loan Agreement and subject to an account control agreement.  The minimum cash balance covenant was included as part of an amendment to the Loan Agreement in connection with our entry into the Huadong License Agreement in December 2017.  The Loan Agreement includes customary events of default, including payment defaults, covenant defaults and material adverse change default.  Upon the occurrence of an event of default and following any

76

applicable cure periods, a default interest rate of an additional 5% will be applied to the outstanding loan balances, and the Lenders may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Loan Agreement.

Cash Flows

Operating Activities

For the year ended December 31, 2017, our net cash used in operating activities decreased $3.6 million from the prior year.  The decrease in uses of cash was primarily driven by lower spending on our clinical trials during 2017 offset by the impact of the receipt of funds from the Reneo License Agreement coupled with the impact of changes in working capital.  

Investing Activities

For the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, net cash used in investing activities was insignificant.

Financing Activities

For the year ended December 31, 2017, net cash provided by financing activities was $7.5 million compared to net cash provided by financing activities of $11.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, resulting in a decrease of $4.3 million.  This change was driven by the relative amounts borrowed under our Loan Agreement in each year.

Future Funding Requirements

To date, we have not generated any revenue from drug product sales. We do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue from drug product sales. We do not expect to generate revenue from drug sales unless and until we obtain regulatory approval of and commercialize azeliragon or any of our other drug candidates. At the same time, we expect our expenses to continue to increase in connection with our ongoing development activities, particularly as we continue the research, development and clinical trials of, and seek regulatory approval for, our drug candidates. In addition, subject to obtaining regulatory approval of any of our drug candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses for product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We anticipate that we will need substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations.  

Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our current cash and cash equivalents and other committed sources of funds under the Letter Agreement will allow us to meet our liquidity requirements through the receipt of top-line results for Subpart A of our STEADFAST Study which we anticipate receiving in April 2018.  In addition to the available cash and cash equivalents and other sources of liquidity, we are seeking possible additional partnering opportunities for our GKA, GLP-1r and other drug candidates which we believe may provide additional cash for use in our operations and the continuation of the clinical trials for our drug candidates.  We may also pursue other sources of financing to provide flexibility to our operating plan.  The timing and availability of such financing is not yet known.  We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we may use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development and commercialization of our drug candidates, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenditures necessary to complete the development of our drug candidates.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

77

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue from drug sales, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We do not currently have any committed external source of funds other than those available through the Letter Agreement. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of our common stockholders 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 that will further limit or restrict our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or drug candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.  If we are unable to obtain additional funding, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect our business prospects.

Disclosures About Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations at December 31, 2017 (in thousands):