UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

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

For the transition period from ____________ to ____________

Commission file number: 001-36268

MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (856) 848-8698

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 Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

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

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

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

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

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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2023, based on a closing price of $45.00 was $63 million.

As of March 29, 2024, the registrant had 2,157,632 shares of its Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Reincorporation

On March 4, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (“MyMD New Jersey” or, prior to the Reincorporation (as defined below), the “Company”) merged with and into its wholly-owned subsidiary, MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“MyMD Delaware” or, following the Reincorporation, the “Company”), with MyMD Delaware being the surviving corporation, pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 4, 2024, by and between MyMD New Jersey and MyMD Delaware (the “Plan of Merger”), for the purpose of changing the Company’s state of incorporation from New Jersey to Delaware (the “Reincorporation”). The Plan of Merger and the Reincorporation were approved by the Company’s stockholders at the 2023 annual meeting of stockholders, held on July 31, 2023 (the “2023 Annual Meeting”).

MyMD Delaware is deemed to be the successor issuer of MyMD New Jersey under Rule 12g-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Reincorporation did not result in any change in the Company’s name, business, management, fiscal year, accounting, location of the principal executive offices, assets or liabilities. In addition, the Company’s common stock retains the same CUSIP number and continues to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “MYMD.”

As of the Effective Date of the Reincorporation, the rights of the Company’s stockholders are governed by the Delaware General Corporation Law, the MyMD Delaware Certificate of Incorporation, and the Bylaws of MyMD Delaware.

See Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

Reverse Stock Split

Effective as of 4:05 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 14, 2024, we effected a one-for-thirty reverse stock split of our common stock (the “Reverse Stock Split”). Simultaneously with the Reverse Stock Split, number of shares of our common stock authorized for issuance was reduced from 500,000,000 shares to 16,666,666 shares, and our authorized capital stock was reduced from 550,000,000 shares to 66,666,666 shares. All share and per share information in this report have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the Reverse Stock Split.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) and the documents we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (which we refer to herein as the “SEC”) that are incorporated by reference herein contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of forward-looking terms such as “anticipates,” “assumes,” “believes,” “can,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “forecasts,” “future,” “guides,” “intends,” “is confident that,”, “may,” “plans,” “seeks,” “projects,” “targets,” and “would” or the negative of such terms or other variations on such terms or comparable terminology. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance or condition and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievement to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.

Examples of forward-looking statements in this Annual Report and our other SEC filings include, but are not limited to, our expectations regarding our business strategy, business prospects, operating results, operating expenses, working capital, liquidity and capital expenditure requirements. These statements are based on our management’s expectations, beliefs and assumptions concerning future events affecting us, which in turn are based on currently available information and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, the risks and uncertainties set forth under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which discussions are incorporated herein by reference.

These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to:

We operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for us to predict all of those risks, nor can we assess the impact of all of those risks on our business or the extent to which any factor may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC are based on assumptions management believes are reasonable. However, due to the uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Further, forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and unless required by law, we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to publicly update any of them in light of new information, future events, or otherwise. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained throughout this Annual Report and the documents we have filed with the SEC.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

MyMD is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company committed to extending healthy lifespan. MyMD is focused on developing and commercializing two therapeutic platforms based on well-defined therapeutic targets, MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD:

The rights to Supera-CBD^TM were previously owned by Supera and were acquired by MyMD Florida (as defined below) immediately prior to the closing of the Merger (as defined below) that occurred in 2021.

MyMD Background and Corporate History

MyMD was organized under the laws of the State of Florida in November 2014 for the purpose of developing and commercializing certain technology and patent rights relating to MYMD-1 that were developed and/or held by the company’s founder, Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. The company’s sole initial stockholder was The Starwood Trust, a trust for which Mr. Williams is settlor/grantor. During the period from November 2014 through November 2016, MyMD was primarily focused on drug discovery and establishing its patent position through SRQ Patent Holdings, an entity affiliated with Mr. Williams. In November 2016, SRQ Patent Holdings assigned to MyMD all of the patent rights and other intellectual property relating to MYMD-1 pursuant to an agreement under which MyMD granted to SRQ Patent Holdings a royalty based on product sales and other revenue arising from the assigned intellectual property (as further described below).

During the period 2016 through October of 2020, MyMD’s principal business activities consisted of the execution and completion of in vitro assays, in vivo pre-clinical animal studies, and genotoxicity and toxicology studies relating to MYMD-1 (as further described below). On June 25, 2019, MyMD commenced a Phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers for pharmacokinetics and tolerability studies, and in December of 2019 MyMD filed an IND for MYMD-1 for treatment of Hashimoto thyroiditis. The Phase 1 trial was completed on January 30, 2020, after which MyMD commenced preparation of a Phase 2 clinical trial for MYMD-1 The company has also commenced a Phase 2 clinical trial for patients with sarcopenia, with dosing begin in the first quarter of 2022. The last patient visit took place on June 6, 2023. The clinical safety report is currently under development.

Additionally, MyMD is working with Charles River Laboratories to conduct a study titled “A 13 Week Electroencephalogram Safety Study of MYMD-1 by Oral Gavage Administration in Beagle Dog.” Dosing began on December 19, 2023.

2021 Merger and Corporate Transactions

On April 16, 2021, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated November 11, 2020 (as subsequently amended, the “Merger Agreement”), by and among the Company, previously known as Akers Biosciences, Inc., XYZ Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”), and MyMD Pharmaceuticals (Florida), Inc., a Florida corporation previously known as MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“MyMD Florida”), Merger Sub was merged with and into MyMD Florida, with MyMD Florida continuing after the merger as the surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Merger”). The Merger consideration included potential milestone payments to the pre-Merger MyMD Florida stockholders (the “Milestone Payments”) payable in shares of the Company’s Common Stock upon the achievement of certain market capitalization milestone events during the 36-month period immediately following the closing of the Merger.

On November 11, 2020, in connection with entering into the Merger Agreement, MyMD Florida entered into the Supera Asset Purchase Agreement pursuant to which MyMD Florida agreed to acquire from Supera substantially all of the assets (including all rights to Supera-CBD) and certain obligations of Supera in consideration of the issuance to Supera of an aggregate of 13,096,640 shares of MyMD Florida Common Stock. As partial consideration for such assignment, Supera has granted to SRQ Patent Holdings II, LLC a royalty with respect to product sales and other consideration arising from the assigned intellectual property.

The Company previously owned, through its subsidiary Cystron Biotech, LLC (“Cystron”), an exclusive license from Premas Biotech PVT Ltd. (“Premas”) with respect to Premas’ vaccine platform for the development of a vaccine against COVID-19 and other coronavirus infections. On April 16, 2021, pursuant to the Contribution and Assignment Agreement, dated March 18, 2021 (the “Contribution Agreement”) by and among the Company, Cystron, Oravax Medical, Inc. (“Oravax”) and, for the limited purpose set forth therein, Premas, the Company caused Cystron to contribute substantially all of the assets associated with its business of developing and manufacturing Cystron’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate to Oravax. Oravax is pursuing the development of the COVID-19 vaccine candidate. MyMD’s interest in Oravax consists of 13% of Oravax’s outstanding shares of capital stock and the rights to a 2.5% royalty on all future net sales. MyMD has evaluated several options with respect to its interest in Oravax, including a potential distribution of Oravax shares to the MyMD shareholders. This would make Oravax a publicly held company. In addition, MyMD currently has the right to designate a member of the board of directors of Oravax, pursuant to which Mr. Joshua Silverman, our Chairman of the Board, has been designated to serve as a director of Oravax.

Status of MyMD Florida

On April 8, 2022, the MyMD Florida subsidiary was dissolved and merged into the New Jersey corporation MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 8, 2022.

Reincorporation

On March 4, 2024, the Reincorporation was effected, and the Company changed its state of incorporation from New Jersey to Delaware.

Drug Development

MyMD is developing two platform drugs targeting numerous disease indications. Below is MyMD’s development pipeline:

Strategy

MyMD’s strategy is to focus on extending healthy life span through the development and commercialization of novel drug platforms based on well-defined therapeutic targets. Below are MyMD’s key clinical strategies:

MYMD-1

Overview

MYMD-1 is a clinical stage drug that targets the immune system by inhibiting the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α. Cytokines are a broad category of molecules involved in immune system coordination. Immunometabolic regulation is the system of regulating the immune system and its pro-inflammatory cytokines in order to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases and age-related illnesses. By affecting the initial triggers that drive autoimmunity, MYMD-1 targets the underlying cause of these diseases rather than just their symptoms. Based on MYMD-1’s Phase 1 clinical trial, completed in January 2020, MyMD has completed a Phase 2 clinical trial for sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss) and is planning a Phase 2 clinical trial for rheumatoid arthritis. MyMD has an active IND with the Endocrinology Division at the FDA for other autoimmune diseases. Studies have been completed on the mechanisms of action and efficacy of MYMD-1 in several pre-clinical models of autoimmune diseases (i.e., experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (“EAE”) that models multiple sclerosis and autoimmune thyroiditis), and these studies have been published in peer reviewed journals. MyMD plans to pursue these indications.

MYMD-1: An Immunometabolic Regulator

Inflammation, activated through the release of TNF-α and other cytokines, is the body’s normal physiological defense against infections and pathogens, and under normal circumstances such inflammation quickly resolves once the intruder is neutralized. However, elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including TNF-α, can lead to prolonged, chronic inflammation, which is closely linked to autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis) and aging (i.e., inflamm-aging) as well as cardiovascular disease and cancers, all of which may result in reduced health span (the period of life spent in good health).

The goal of immunometabolic regulatory drugs such as MYMD-1 is to target immune cells that overproduce pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α, without preventing normal immune cell function. TNF-α is a cytokine that is released by immune cells that plays a key role in acute and chronic inflammation, autoimmune diseases and aging. Examples of currently approved immunometabolic regulating drugs include Dimethyl Fumarate (“DMF”) (approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis) and Rapamycin (used in kidney transplants and being studied in aging).

MYMD-1 is a novel immunometabolic regulator that has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo ability to regulate the release of multiple cytokines from immune cells, including TNF-α. MYMD-1 is being developed to treat chronic inflammatory diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and aging.

MYMD-1 Regulates Multiple Cytokines

MyMD conducted an in vitro study to demonstrate that MYMD-1 regulates a broad range of cytokines, including TNF-α, interferon gamma (INFγ) and interleukins, including interleukin 2 (“IL-2”) and IL-17A. By blocking these cytokines that have been shown to play key roles in the development and maintenance of autoimmune diseases, MYMD-1 treats the causes—and not just the symptoms—of this class of illnesses.

Figure 1. MYMD-1 modulates the release of a broad spectrum of cytokines.

An additional in vitro study demonstrates that MYMD-1 has broad cytokine inhibiting activity including inhibition of TNF-α, IL-16 and IL-17a. The study also suggested MYMD-1 has limited toxicity, even at high doses, and none up to 2,000 micromoles.

In an in vivo study (NOD.H2 mouse model), MYMD-1 decreased serum levels of TNF-α and INFγ.

Figure 2. MYMD-1 decreases the serum levels TNF-α and IFN-g in NOD.H-2h4 mice. NOD.H-2h4 mice were treated with either regular water or iodinated water (500 mg/l of sodium iodide), and each group was treated or not treated with MYMD-1 (185 mg/l). Cytokines were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment using a multiplex magnetic bead array. (A and B) MYMD-1 significantly decreased serum TNF-α levels in the regular water group and tended to decrease it in the iodinated water group. (C and D) MYMD-1 showed a modest effect on serum IFN-g in the iodinated water group. Results are from three independent experiments. Statistical comparisons were made by longitudinal data analysis with generalized estimating equations.

MYMD-1 Targets Autoimmune Diseases

MYMD-1 is designed to regulate the immunometabolic system and intended for development as a potential treatment for certain autoimmune diseases, including (but not limited to) multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and/or inflammatory bowel disease. MYMD-1 is also being developed to treat age-related illnesses such as frailty and sarcopenia. Autoimmune diseases are a broad category of diseases that result from an overactive immune response, where immunometabolic system dysregulation is believed to play an important role. A healthy immune system defends the body against disease and infection. If the immune system malfunctions, it can mistakenly attack healthy cells, tissues, and organs. In response to an often-unknown trigger, the immune system starts producing antibodies that attack the body’s own cells instead of fighting infections.

TNF-α, produced primarily by specific white blood cells, belongs to a category of proteins called cytokines that act as chemical messengers throughout the body to regulate many aspects of the immune system. Other key cytokines include IL-6, IL-17A, interleukin 10 (“IL-10”) and Interferon gamma (“INFγ”). Cytokines are essential to mounting an inflammatory response. However, chronic or excessive production of cytokines has been implicated in a number of acute and chronic inflammatory diseases.

A number of drugs target the immunometabolic system to treat autoimmune diseases, including DMF (approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis) and Rapamycin (being studied in aging, rheumatoid arthritis, and other autoimmune diseases). Additional therapies for autoimmune diseases include anti-inflammatory drugs and immunosuppressive agents including drugs that non-selectively inhibit or block TNF-α (generally referred to as “TNF-α blocking drugs”). Currently available TNF-α blocking drugs must be injected or infused to work. In some instances, the efficacy of a given dosage of TNF-α blockers declines with repeated administration, and side effects can also be a concern. These non-selective TNF-α blockers can cause serious bacterial, fungal, and viral infections. MYMD-1 is a selective, oral TNF-α inhibitor that might provide a safer alternative to existing products on the market. The global market for TNF-α blockers was estimated at $41.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach $45.5 billion by 2027.

An in vitro study involving human blood cells analyzed the cytokine inhibitory effects of MYMD-1 together with leading approved TNF-α blockers (monoclonal antibodies).

Figure 3. Comparison of inhibitory effect of MYMD-1 with other TNF-α blockers. MYMD-1 exhibits a dose-dependent reduction in release of several cytokine more effectively than Humira, Enbrel and Remicade.

We believe MYMD-1 is distinguishable from currently marketed TNF-α blockers because it selectively blocks TNF-α production related to adaptive immunity (involved in autoimmunity) but spares the role of this cytokine in innate immunity (which plays a primary protective role in fighting off invading organisms). Because of the crucial role that TNF-α plays in front line protection by the innate immune system (e.g., from bacterial, fungal, and viral infections), the indiscriminate blockade of TNF-α by TNF-α blocking agents can cause serious and even fatal infections, which is one of the primary limiting factors in the use of this class of drugs. Based on our belief regarding the selectivity of MYMD-1 in blocking TNF-α, therefore, we intend to explore the extent to which MYMD-1 may be a safer alternative to treat infectious, inflammatory, and autoimmune conditions, as well as its potential to ameliorate immune mediated depression in such illnesses.

Pre-Clinical Study of MYMD-1 in Multiple Sclerosis Study (EAE Mouse Model)

Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease in which T cells lead an attack on oligodendrocytes and neurons. Multiple sclerosis is the leading neurological cause of disability in adults aged 30–50, and approximately one million people in the United States are affected with this debilitating disease. T cells are one of the major components of the adaptive immune system. Their roles include directly killing infected host cells, activating other immune cells, producing cytokines and regulating the immune response. When naïve, undifferentiated T cells become activated, they differentiate and acquire effector functions that can be delineated by the cytokines they secrete.

Preliminary in vivo studies of the therapeutic efficacy of MYMD-1 in the animal model for multiple sclerosis, known as EAE, indicate that MYMD-1 modulates autoreactive T cell activation in a dose-dependent manner, suppresses T cell activation and ameliorates the course of EAE. Further EAE mouse studies suggest that MYMD-1 suppresses the influx of CD4+ T cells into the brain.

Figure 4. Effects of MYMD-1 on the influx of T cells into the CNS early in EAE. To assess the effects of MYMD-1 on the infiltration of T cells into the CNS, mice were immunized and treated with either vehicle control or 25 mg/mouse/day MYMD-1. Ten to 14 days later, mice were perfused and brains collected for analysis. Infiltration was determined by flow cytometry. Analysis of Th1 and Th17 subsets are shown; data compiled from 2 to 3 experiments, n > 3/group per experiment). Student’s t-test was conducted for statistics.

MYMD-1 In Vivo Study of Autoimmune Thyroiditis (NODH.2 Mouse Model)

Thyroiditis or Hashimoto thyroiditis is an autoimmune disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the thyroid gland. It has been shown that tobacco smoking has a protective effect against Hashimoto thyroiditis as tobacco smokers have a lower prevalence of thyroid autoantibodies than non-smokers.

MyMD conducted an in vivo study of autoimmune thyroiditis in a spontaneous thyroiditis (NODH.2) mouse model. We believe the results of this study show MYMD-1’s ability to suppress TNF-α production by CD-4+ T cells in a dose dependent manner. Additionally, the study reported that MYMD-1 statistically decreases the incidence and severity (p <0.001) of thyroiditis in this mouse model. Pre-clinical studies have demonstrated that MYMD-1 ameliorated autoimmune thyroiditis in the thyroiditis mouse model.

Figure 5. MYMD-1 decreases the incidence and severity of autoimmune thyroiditis in NOD.H-2h4 mice, as assessed by H&E histopathology. At 8 weeks old, 58 NOD.H-2h4 mice were divided into regular water and iodinated water groups. In the regular water group, 10 mice (7 M, 3 F) drank water that contained MYMD-1 (185 mg/l), and 16 mice (10 M, 6 F) drank water without it. In the iodinated water group, the water was supplemented with 500 mg/l of sodium iodide and contained (16 mice: 10 M, 6 F) or did not contain (16 mice: 10 M, 6 F) MYMD-1 (185 mg/l). After 12 weeks of treatment, thyroids were removed and divided in half. (A and B) Thyroiditis severity and incidence assessed by histopathology in the regular water group. (C) A representative thyroid from a mouse in the regular water group, showing a severity score of 2. (D) A representative thyroid from a mouse in the regular water group treated with MYMD-1, showing thyroid follicle preservation and an overall normal glandular size (severity score of 0). (E and F) Thyroiditis incidence and severity scores assessed by histopathology in the iodinated water group. (G) A representative thyroid from a mouse in the iodine group, showing marked lymphocytic infiltration, follicular enlargement, and architectural disruption (severity score of 4). (H) A representative thyroid from a mouse in the iodine plus MYMD-1 group (severity score of 2). Results represent the summary of 10 independent experiments, each analyzing 4 to 6 mice, for a total of 58 mice.

MYMD-1 Targets Inflamm-Aging and Related Disorders

Aging is associated with a loss of tight regulation of the immune system. This leads to increased inflammatory activity in the body, including increased circulating levels of TNF-α. Chronic inflammation is a hallmark of aging, referred to as inflamm-aging. Inflamm-aging and chronic inflammation are closely linked to a number of disorders such as obesity, insulin resistance/type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers. TNF-α is a multifunctional pro-inflammatory cytokine which may play a part in the pathogenesis of certain age-related disorders such as atherosclerosis. A multi-year pre-clinical, proof of concept in vivo study in aging and longevity confirmed our belief regarding MYMD-1’s potential therapeutic effect on inflamm-aging and other age-related disorders, which we intend to explore further in clinical trials, pending our submission, and the corresponding acceptance, of the requisite regulatory and other relevant submissions.

Bascom Palmer Eye Institute Collaboration

On July 12, 2022, we announced a new collaboration with Bascom Palmer Eye Institute of Miami, Florida (“Bascom Palmer”) to collaborate on a pre-clinical study using MYMD-1 as a potential treatment for traumatic optic neuropathy (TON). To date, our collaboration with Bascom Palmer has included pre-clinical and clinical investigations.

Pre-Clinical

In July 2022 we entered into a Material Transfer Agreement with Bascom Palmer. Our collaboration was announced in a press release and in an article in Ophthalmology Times. Bascom Palmer confirmed in August 2022 that it had received a quantity of our MYMD-1 product candidate and MYMD provided a material safety datasheet and certification of analysis. In August 2022, Bascom Palmer researchers conducted a preliminary introductory study of TON in mice. Investigators ran a crush injury of the mice’s optic nerves with and without MYMD-1. The study drug was given once per day via oral gavage at a dosage of 30 mg/kg of body weight. The mice were treated for five days, untreated for two days, and then sacrificed, and their TNF-α levels were measured. The crush injury raised levels of TNF-α. After being dosed with MYMD, TNF-α levels were brought down in crush injury compared to controls, but the decrease did not meet statistical significance (p=0.095). Likely cause of the result not reaching p<0.05 may be attributed to rebound (e.g. TNF-α levels would have gone up when MYMD-1 stopped; daily dosing may need to me adjusted, crush injury may have been too severe for the medication, and/or possible contribution of ketamine which is an anti-inflammatory. Additional studies are not planned for now.

Clinical

In addition to the pre-clinical study described above, we collaborated with Bascom Palmer to plan a clinical study. In August 2022, Bascom Palmer researchers executed a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement and Bascom Palmer produced a draft protocol synopsis entitled, Assessment of the Anti-Inflammatory Effects of MYMD-1 in Non-Infectious Anterior Uveitis: A Randomized Controlled, Double Blind Clinical Study. This program is not active.

MYMD-1 Commercialization Targets

MYMD-1 is being developed to address serious and debilitating autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, including sarcopenia, frailty resulting from aging process, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2020, there were approximately 54 million U.S. residents over 65 years of age, representing 16% of the U.S. population. This figure is expected to increase to nearly 22% by the year 2040.¹ The Arthritis Foundation estimates that approximately 1.5 million people in the U.S. have RA.²

Supera-CBD

Supera-CBD is a synthetic small molecule that is an analog of naturally grown CBD derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. Supera-CBD is being developed to treat conditions with which CBD is often anecdotally associated but for which no natural or synthetic CBD-containing drugs have been approved by the FDA, such as pain, anxiety/depression and seizures from epilepsy. While naturally grown CBD is a constituent of Cannabis sativa, Supera-CBD is a synthetic analog of CBD, thus eliminating potential complications associated with the psychoactive effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), which is also a constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant. Studies have suggested that CBD may have broad therapeutic properties, including the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders.

¹ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020 Profile of Older Americans. May 2021 Page 3.

² The Arthritis Foundation. Rheumatoid Arthritis: Causes, Symptoms, Treatments and More.

Overview

General Pharmacology and Therapeutic Profile

CBD inhibits a number of important receptors, including the CB2 receptor and opioid receptors, and can also inhibit MAO enzymes. In the immune system, one of the important functions of the CB2 receptor is in the regulation of cytokine release from immune cells. Antagonists targeting the CB2 receptor have been proposed for the treatment or management of a range of painful conditions as well as for treating several neurological diseases. The Company conducted an in vitro binding assay study to analyze the CB2 inhibition of Supera-CBD together with that of CBD derived from naturally grown plants.

Opioid receptors are widely expressed in the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerves and digestive tract. MyMD conducted an in vitro binding analysis of Supera-CBD with the three types of opioid receptors. The profile suggests that Supera-CBD could possibly play a role in treating opioid addiction.

MAOs are enzymes involved in the catabolism, or digestion, of certain neurotransmitters. MyMD conducted an in vitro MAO inhibition study. In this study, Supera-CBD and commercial CBD were analyzed against positive and negative controls. In this study, Supera-CBD far exceeded CBD in dose-dependent inhibition of MAOs, particularly MAO-B. Drugs that inhibit MAOs have been commercially used for decades to treat depression, and more recent studies have suggested MAO-B inhibiting drugs might have a role to play in treating cognitive decline in aging.

Supera-CBD Early-Stage Plans for Development and Potential Commercialization Targets

Supera-CBD is in early-stage development for pain, anxiety, and sleep disorders. There are currently a number of over-the-counter CBD products marketed with unapproved therapeutic claims relating to these conditions, among other conditions. While there are a substantial number of such products on the market that have not been subject to regulatory enforcement action, the FDA has consistently reiterated, in guidance and warning letters against a number of the companies marketing such CBD products for such uses, that CBD products may not be lawfully marketed for therapeutic uses in the United States without first-obtaining FDA approval via the NDA process. CBD product sales in the US reportedly reached $5.3 billion in 2021, 15% growth over 2020 sales, and are projected to reach $16 billion by 2026.³ MyMD believes that if Supera-CBD is approved by the FDA, it may have competitive advantages over currently marketed CBD products that have not been approved by FDA as drug products, as approved drugs must undergo rigorous premarket study and generate results sufficient to support a finding that they are safe and effective for their intended use(s) and remain subject to ongoing FDA postmarket regulation, which provides additional assurances relating to quality, consistency and safety.

Currently, there is one FDA-approved drug with plant-derived CBD as an active ingredient. FDA subsequently approved three other cannabinoid-containing drugs, two of which utilize synthetic cannabinoids analogous or similar to THC as the active ingredient and the other, a combination of synthetic CBD and THC. Epidiolex is being commercialized by GW Pharmaceuticals, plc (“GWPH”) to treat seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients two years of age and older. The reported revenues from Epidiolex in fiscal year 2019 were approximately $296 million. MYMD believes that, by utilizing synthetic, rather than naturally derived, CBD in Supera-CBD may mitigate a number of obstacles generally associated with growing and processing an active drug ingredient produced from naturally grown plant extracts.

On March 2, 2023, we announced that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has conducted a scientific review and determined that it would not Supera-CBD a controlled substance or listed chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its governing regulations. We believe that this decision will expedite future research involving Supera-CBD by relieving us or our research partners from having to comply with regulations relating to controlled substances.

Sales and Marketing

MyMD does not currently have sales and marketing infrastructure to support the launch of its products. MyMD intends to build such capabilities in North America prior to launch the commercial MYMD-1, if successfully developed and granted the requisite FDA approval. Outside of North America, MyMD may rely on licensing, co-sale and co-promotion agreements with strategic partners for commercialization of its products. If MyMD builds a commercial infrastructure to support marketing in North America, such commercial infrastructure could be expected to include a targeted sales force supported by sales management, internal sales support, an internal marketing group and distribution support. To develop the appropriate commercial infrastructure internally, MyMD would have to invest financial and management resources, some of which would have to be deployed prior to any confirmation that MYMD-1 or Supera-CBD will be approved, which cannot be guaranteed.

Competition

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and vigorous defense of intellectual property. Any product candidates that MyMD successfully develops and commercializes will have to compete with existing and future new therapies. While MyMD believes that its drug candidates, development experience and scientific knowledge may provide it with certain competitive advantages, MyMD faces potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions.

Existing therapies for autoimmune diseases include anti-inflammatory drugs and immunosuppressive agents, including drugs that seek to selectively inhibit or block TNF-α (generally referred to as “TNF-α blocking drugs”). TNF-α blocking drugs are large molecules that are generally injected or infused. In some instances, the period of efficacy of a given dosage of TNF-α blockers can decline with repeated administration and side effects can be a concern. Leading TNF-α blocking drugs include Etanercept (Enbrel), Infliximab (Remicade), and Adalimumab (Humira). The total TNF-α market collectively represented approximately $41 billion in global sales in 2022.⁴ All of these existing TNF-α blocking drugs require injection, whereas MYMD-1 is being developed to be orally bioavailable. Our management believes patients and providers would view the fact that MYMD-1 can be administered orally as a significant advantage.

Unlike currently marketed TNF-α blockers, MYMD-1 is designed to selectively block TNF-α production related to adaptive immunity (involved in autoimmunity) but to spare the role of this cytokine in innate immunity (which plays the primary initial role in fighting off invading organisms). Because of the crucial role that TNF-α plays in front line protection by the innate immune system from bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, the indiscriminate blockade of TNF-α by TNF-α blocking agents can cause serious and even fatal infections, which is the primary limiting factor in the use of this class of drugs. MyMD thus believes that, if MYMD-1 is approved for marketing, the potential selectivity of MYMD-1 in blocking TNF-α might make it a preferrable alternative to some existing treatments for infectious, inflammatory, and autoimmune conditions, as well as simultaneously resulting in amelioration of immune mediated depression in such illnesses if it is also approved for such indication.

³ Benzinga: US Hemp CBD Market To Hit $5.3B In Sales In 2021.

⁴ https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/tnf-alpha-inhibitor-global-market-report

Intellectual Property

MyMD’s policy is to develop and maintain MyMD’s proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing U.S. and foreign patents and applications related to MyMD’s drug candidates and methods of treatment that are material to the development and implementation of MyMD’s business. MyMD also relies on trademarks, know-how, confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements to develop and maintain MyMD’s proprietary position.

MyMD’s patent portfolio includes protection for MYMD’s lead product candidates, MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD. Currently, there are multiple patent families relating to (i) age reversal and treatments of age-related disorders including sarcopenia; (ii) reduction of TNF-α levels and treatments of autoimmune disorders; (iii) addiction treatments; and (iv) methods of increasing hair growth. As of the date of this document, MyMD has 16 issued U.S. patents, three pending U.S. patent applications, 64 issued foreign patents, and 10 foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions as Australia, Canada, China, European Union, Israel, Japan and South Korea, which, if issued, are expected to expire between 2036 and 2041.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which MyMD files, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing of the first non-provisional application in which priority is claimed. In the U.S. patent term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. In the U.S., the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term extension of up to five years under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which is designed to compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The length of the patent term extension involves a complex calculation based on the length of time it takes for regulatory review. A patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

MyMD’s commercial success depends in part on its ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for MyMD’s product candidates, as well as novel discoveries, core technologies, and know-how, as well as its ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing its proprietary rights.

Assignment and Royalty Agreements

MyMD is a party to two Amended and Restated Confirmatory Patent Assignment and Royalty Agreements, both dated November 11, 2020, with SRQ Patent Holdings and SRQ Patent Holdings II, under which MyMD (or its successor) will be obligated to pay to SRQ Patent Holdings or SRQ Patent Holdings II (or its designees) certain royalties on product sales or other revenue received on products that incorporate or are covered by the intellectual property that was assigned to MyMD. The royalty is equal to 8% of the net sales price on product sales and, without duplication, 8% of milestone revenue or sublicense compensation. SRQ Patent Holdings and SRQ Patent Holdings II are affiliates of Mr. Williams.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state, and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drugs and biological products. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety, and efficacy in connection with the target indication(s) for use must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

FDA Approval Process

In the U.S., pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation under the FD&C Act and the FDA’s implementing regulations and other federal and state statutes and regulations governing, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety enforcement actions and/or administrative or judicial sanctions, including, but not limited to clinical holds, FDA refusal to approve NDA submissions and/or revocation or limitation of existing NDAs for approved products, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new drug product or certain changes to an approved product in the U.S. typically requires pre-clinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical testing on human subjects may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements are inherently uncertain, expensive, and it typically takes many years to generate sufficient data to apply for approval, even when such approval is not ultimately granted, and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of pre-clinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term pre-clinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; and (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an IRB and ethics committee for approval. The IRB will also monitor the clinical trial until completed. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the trial.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a drug demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial may be sufficient in rare instances, including (1) where the trial is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (2) when in conjunction with other confirmatory evidence.

The manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of all pre-clinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls.

The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently exceeding $4 million for fiscal year 2024 and $3.2 million for fiscal year 2023 (for applications containing clinical data), which increased from $3.1 million for fiscal year 2022. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The applicant under an approved NDA is also subject to annual program fees, currently $393,933 for fiscal year 2023 for each prescription product and $416,734 for fiscal year 2024. for each prescription product. The FDA adjusts the user fees on an annual basis, and the fees typically increase annually.

The FDA reviews each submitted NDA before it determines whether to file it and may request additional information. The FDA must make a decision on whether to file an NDA within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. Most applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed in six to eight months. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines may offer significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to marketed products or where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA does not always meet its goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process can be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an outside advisory committee—typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts—for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also typically inspects clinical trial sites to ensure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the data supporting safety and efficacy.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter (“CRL”). A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission, which may be minor and more technical, or major and more substantive and, in the latter case may require substantial additional testing or data to be eligible for substantive review by FDA upon resubmission, such as additional clinical data, additional pivotal clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, pre-clinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may resubmit the NDA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, engage in formal dispute resolution or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in two to six months depending on the type of information included. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If the deficiencies identified in the CRL are addressed to FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA (and FDA does not identify any other issues that need to be corrected prior to approval or that, otherwise, cause the agency to determine that approval is not appropriate at the given time), the FDA will issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (“PREA”), as amended and reauthorized, certain NDAs or supplements to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may also require a REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“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 patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

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

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information to the U.S. public by publishing such information on clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Expedited Development and Review 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 fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and priority review designation. MyMD has not applied for expedited approval under any of these pathways to-date but intends to explore the extent to which any of its current or future product candidates may be eligible for one or more such pathways. There is no guarantee that FDA will grant any of MyMD’s products candidates the expedited designation(s) for which it is submitted, if any, or that MyMD will secure any of the applicable benefits associated with any of any expedited designations that may be granted to its current or future product candidates, if applicable.

Fast-Track Designation

Fast track designation may be granted for a product that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which pre-clinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. The sponsor of an investigational drug product may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast-track drug concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for fast-track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. 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 NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is 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. At the time of NDA filing, the FDA will determine whether to grant priority review designation. Additionally, fast track designation may be withdrawn if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

In 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. This law established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the 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.

Priority Review Designation

The FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug 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 drug 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 drug 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.

Accelerated Approval

Accelerated approval may be granted for a product that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and that generally provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments. A product eligible for accelerated approval may be approved on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, 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. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long, and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence and, in some cases, the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated, and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Post-marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA. Drug manufacturers’ and/or sponsors’ post-marketing FDA obligations, include, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and a number of other specific requirements for prescription-drug advertising. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote their approved drug products for off-label uses. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and may also require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS, or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue.

FDA regulations require that drug products be manufactured in registered drug-manufacturing facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. MYMD currently relies on third parties to produce clinical quantities of its drug candidates under development in accordance with applicable GCPs and GLPs, and expects to continue to rely, on third parties to produce clinical and commercial quantities of MYMD’s products that are approved for marketing in the United States, if any, in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in a wide range of enforcement actions against the manufacturer, including, but not limited to, recalls, warning letters, “dear doctor” letters, civil lawsuits, fines, and criminal prosecution. And the discovery of previously unknown safety or efficacy problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on, revocation of, or the addition of conditions to the product’s approval, among other potential adverse actions.

In addition to the requirements applicable to approved drug products, sponsors may also be subject to enforcement action in connection with any promotion of any investigational new drug. A sponsor or investigator, or any person acting on behalf of a sponsor or investigator, may not represent in a promotional context that an investigational new drug is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is under investigation or otherwise promote or market the product.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including the CMS, other divisions of the HHS, the DOJ, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Other Healthcare Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which MyMD may obtain marketing approval. MyMD’s current and future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose MyMD to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which MyMD markets, sells and distributes any drugs for which MYMD obtains marketing approval. In the U.S., these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below. MYMD’s business operations, including its research, marketing, and activities relating to the reporting of wholesale or estimated retail prices for MyMD’s products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for MyMD’s products, and the sale and marketing of MyMD’s product and any future product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under these laws.

State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances. These data privacy and security laws may differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, which may complicate compliance efforts. Furthermore, most states in the United States have enacted laws regulating the confidentiality and security of medical information and increased public focus on privacy may result in amendments or changes to these laws in ways that may have an impact on MyMD’s business activities related to the collection and use of health-related information.

The increased attention on privacy in the United States may also impact MyMD’s business activities for the processing of personal information not otherwise governed by HIPAA. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) imposes significant privacy and cybersecurity requirements related to the handling of all types of personal information, with heightened requirements on sensitive personal information, such as health information. The GDPR imposes significant limitations on the use of this personal information and grants individuals in the EU certain rights associated with the collection and use of personal information. In the U.S., California enacted the CCPA, which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (generally defined as any resident of California, including employees and other business relations) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal information of consumers or households. The CCPA also greatly extends the obligations of entities that process personal information to include information not traditionally viewed as personal information and regulated by laws, such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, unique identifiers for individuals, and information in online cookies and other online technologies. A majority of other states have already proposed or enacted laws similar to the CCPA, each differing in scope of the personal information covered and the rights of individuals. Furthermore, the CCPA has already been amended with the passage of California’s Proposition 24 (the California Privacy Rights Act, “CPRA”), which adds additional rights and obligations. While the CCPA and CPRA currently provide relatively broad exclusions for protected health information regulated by HIPAA and clinical trials and a limited exception for consumer and business to business information, some of the proposed and enacted laws in other states may not contain the same exceptions. Furthermore, there have been a number of competing proposals for federal laws, some of which propose to not preempt other state laws. The uncertainty surrounding proposed new and changes to existing privacy laws may lead to operational challenges for MYMD to comply with multiple, potentially conflicting, privacy and cybersecurity laws related to the collection and use of personal information in each jurisdiction.

Various state and federal laws and regulations also require entities to implement “reasonable” or “adequate” security measures to protect personal information, but generally do not provide any specific sets of security measures that would be considered compliant to avoid liability. Instead, different regulators have adopted inconsistent and evolving standards based on the regulator’s view of what is appropriate given the nature and scope of the personal information and the processing performed, resulting in unclear obligations. This may result in potential liability if a regulator finds that MYMD’s security practices do not meet or exceed the types of security measures that the regulator believes to be adequate or reasonable under the circumstances.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially considering the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have continued to increase their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that MyMD’s business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If MyMD’s operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to it, MyMD may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if MyMD becomes subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of MyMD’s operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom MyMD expects to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

Current and Future Healthcare Reform Legislation

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148) (the “ACA”) and on March 30, 2010, he signed the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” (P.L. 111-152), collectively commonly referred to as the “Healthcare Reform Law.” The Healthcare Reform Law included a number of new rules regarding health insurance, the provision of healthcare, conditions to reimbursement for healthcare services provided to Medicare and Medicaid patients, and other healthcare policy reforms. Through the law-making process, substantial changes have been and continue to be made to the current system for paying for healthcare in the U.S., including changes made to extend medical benefits to certain Americans who lacked insurance coverage and to contain or reduce healthcare costs (such as by reducing or conditioning reimbursement amounts for healthcare services and drugs, and imposing additional taxes, fees, and rebate obligations on pharmaceutical and medical device companies). This legislation was one of the most comprehensive and significant reforms ever experienced by the U.S. in the healthcare industry and has significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. This legislation has impacted the scope of healthcare insurance and incentives for consumers and insurance companies, among others. Additionally, the Healthcare Reform Law’s provisions were designed to encourage providers to find cost savings in their clinical operations. Pharmaceuticals represent a significant portion of the cost of providing care. This environment has caused changes in the purchasing habits of consumers and providers and resulted in specific attention to the pricing negotiation, product selection and utilization review surrounding pharmaceuticals. This attention may result in our product candidates, to the extent approved for commercialization in the future, being chosen less frequently or the pricing being substantially lowered. At this stage, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of the direct or indirect impact of the Healthcare Reform Law on us.

These structural changes could entail further modifications to the existing system of private payors and government programs (such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program), creation of government-sponsored healthcare insurance sources, or some combination of both, as well as other changes. Restructuring the coverage of medical care in the U.S. could impact the reimbursement for prescribed drugs and pharmaceuticals, including any products that we may commercialize or promote in the future. If reimbursement for the products we may commercialize or promote in the future is substantially reduced or otherwise adversely affected in the future, or rebate obligations associated with them are substantially increased, it could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Extending medical benefits to those who currently lack coverage will likely result in substantial costs to the U.S. federal government, which may force significant additional changes to the healthcare system in the U.S. Much of the funding for expanded healthcare coverage may be sought through cost savings. While some of these savings may come from realizing greater efficiencies in delivering care, improving the effectiveness of preventive care and enhancing the overall quality of care, much of the cost savings may come from reducing the cost of care and increased enforcement activities. Cost of care could be reduced further by decreasing the level of reimbursement for medical services or products or by restricting coverage (and, thereby, utilization) of medical services or products. In either case, a reduction in the utilization of, or reimbursement for any product we may commercialize or promote in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Several states and private entities initially mounted legal challenges to the Healthcare Reform Law, in particular, the ACA, and they continue to litigate various aspects of the legislation. On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court generally upheld the provisions of the ACA at issue as constitutional. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legislation improperly required the states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more individuals. As a result, states have a choice as to whether they will expand the number of individuals covered by their respective state Medicaid programs. Some states have not expanded their Medicaid programs and have chosen to develop other cost-saving and coverage measures to provide care to currently uninsured individuals. Many of these efforts to date have included the institution of Medicaid-managed care programs. The manner in which these cost-saving and coverage measures are implemented could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Further, the healthcare regulatory environment has seen significant changes in recent years and is still in flux. Legislative initiatives to modify, limit, replace, or repeal the ACA and judicial challenges have continued. We cannot predict the impact on our business of future legislative and legal challenges to the ACA or other aspects of the Healthcare Reform Law or other changes to the current laws and regulations. The financial impact of U.S. healthcare reform legislation over the next few years will depend on a number of factors, including the policies reflected in implementing regulations and guidance and changes in sales volumes for therapeutics affected by the legislation. From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in the U.S. Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing coverage, reimbursement, and marketing of pharmaceutical products. In addition, third-party payor coverage and reimbursement policies are often revised or interpreted in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products.

During his time in office, former President Trump supported the repeal of all or portions of the ACA. President Trump also issued an executive order in which he stated that it is his administration’s policy to seek the prompt repeal of the ACA and in which he directed executive departments and federal agencies to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of the provisions of the ACA to the maximum extent permitted by law. Congress has enacted legislation that repeals certain portions of the ACA, including but not limited to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December 2017, which included a provision that eliminates the penalty under the ACA’s individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019, as well as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, passed in February 2018, which, among other things, repealed the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which was established by the ACA and was intended to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending).

Additionally, in December 2018, a district court in Texas held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the ACA is, therefore, invalid. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the holding on the individual mandate but remanded the case back to the lower court to reassess whether and how such holding affects the validity of the rest of the ACA. The Fifth Circuit’s decision on the individual mandate was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs (comprised of the state of Texas, as well as numerous other states and certain individuals) did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate and, accordingly, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and instructed the district court to dismiss the case. As a result, the ACA will remain in-effect in its current form for the foreseeable future; however, we cannot predict what additional challenges may arise in the future, the outcome thereof, or the impact any such actions may have on our business.

The Biden administration also introduced various measures in 2021 focusing on healthcare and drug pricing, in particular. For example, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021, and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. On the legislative front, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law on March 11, 2021, which, in relevant part, eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source drugs and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. And, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order entitled, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices” that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. And, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which aims to lower prescription drug pricing by, among other things, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs covered under Medicare Part D and Part B after the drugs have been on the market for a certain number of years and requiring on drug manufacturers to pay rebates if they increase drug prices “faster than inflation.” In the coming years, additional legislative and regulatory changes could be made to governmental health programs that could significantly impact pharmaceutical companies and the success of our product candidates. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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.

There is uncertainty as to what healthcare programs and regulations may be implemented or changed at the federal and/or state level in the United States or the effect of any future legislation or regulation. Furthermore, we cannot predict what actions the Biden administration will implement in connection with the Health Reform Law. However, it is possible that such initiatives could have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain approval and/or successfully commercialize products in the United States in the future. For example, any changes that reduce, or impede the ability to obtain, reimbursement for our product candidates approved for commercialization in the United States, if any, or any other drug products we may commercialize in the future or that reduce medical procedure volumes could adversely affect our operations and/or future business plans.

Packaging and Distribution in the United States

If MyMD’s product candidates that are approved for commercialization in the United States, if any, are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements may apply. In relevant part, products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

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

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against MyMD for violation of these laws, even if MyMD is successful in defending against it, could cause MyMD to incur significant legal expenses and divert MyMD’s management’s attention from the operation of its business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by MyMD could materially affect its business in an adverse way.

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

Reimbursement

Sales of any of MyMD’s product candidates that are approved for marketing in the United States or any other products MyMD may commercialize in the future, as applicable, will depend, in part, on the extent to which MyMD’s products, if approved, will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurers and managed healthcare organizations, as well as the level of reimbursement that those third-party payors provide for MyMD’s products. Patients and providers are unlikely to use MyMD’s products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of MyMD’s products. In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drugs or biological products exists, and one payor’s determination to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for a product does not assure that other payors will make a similar determination. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of MyMD’s product candidates, if approved, will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. As a result, the coverage determination process may be a time-consuming and costly process that will require MyMD to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of MyMD’s products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the HHS as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, creating a new method by which rebates owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, as well as potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of average manufacturer’s price (“AMP”). The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. Pricing and rebate programs must also comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which MyMD receives marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for MyMD’s products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices MyMD might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the AMP, and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although, under the current state of the law, with the exception of children’s hospitals, these newly eligible entities will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. In addition, as 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. The 340B program imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. It is unclear how this decision could affect covered hospitals who might purchase MyMD’s products in the future and affect the rates MyMD may charge such facilities for its approved products. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

As noted above, the marketability of any products for which MyMD receives regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and other third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. An increasing emphasis on cost containment measures in the U.S. has increased and MyMD expects it will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. 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 MyMD receives regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices MyMD may obtain for any of its product candidates for which MyMD may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

In addition, in most foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, MyMD may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of MyMD’s product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of MyMD’s products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and, generally, prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

Employees

As of December 31, 2023, MyMD had six full-time employees and no part-time employees. MyMD has not experienced any work stoppages. None of MyMD’s employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and MyMD considers its relationship with its employees to be good.

Management Plans for 2024

In November 2022, the company published data from the Phase 1 dosing study for MYMD-1 as a treatment for aging. There was a statistically significant decrease in TNF-α levels (p-value <0.05) found in one MYMD-1 treated cohort, but no change in the levels in subjects given placebo.

MyMD in collaboration with its CRO is in the final stages of preparing the end of Phase II, “A double-blind, randomized, Phase 2 study to investigate the efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of MYMD1 in the treatment of participants aged 65 years or older with chronic inflammation associated with sarcopenia/frailty” for submission to the FDA. The submission is planned for the beginning of the second quarter of 2024. Exploratory analysis indicates the biomarker sTNFR1 is the most sensitive biomarker for Sarcopenia patients aged 65-75 years old.

A phase II study for rheumatoid arthritis, “A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter Phase II proof-of-concept study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, biological activity, and pharmacokinetics of MYMD-1™ added to methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis” IND application was reviewed and approved by the FDA to begin clinical trials on August 9, 2023. On November 17, 2023 an Annual Report was submitted to the FDA.

In October 2020 we completed several in vitro studies from human primary cell-based BioMap systems at Eurofins contrasting MYMD-1 with Humira, Enbrel and Remicade.

MYMD-1 Product Candidate

We completed enrollment in the fourth and final cohort of patients in the Phase 2 Aging and Sarcopenia Study (“A Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Study to Investigate the Efficacy, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of MYMD-1 in The Treatment of Participants Aged 65 Years or Older with Chronic Inflammation Associated with Sarcopenia/Frailty”). ”). As mentioned above, MyMD is preparing the submission to the FDA in the beginning of the second quarter of 2024. Exploratory analysis indicates the biomarker sTNFR1 is the most sensitive biomarker for Sarcopenia patients aged 65-75 years old. PK analysis indicates that PK/PD strategy is consistent at measurements of biomarkers 2-4 hours post-dose. There were no serious adverse events reported, no subject dropout’s secondary to an adverse event. Additionally, there were no clinically significant cardiovascular, ECG issues, or neurotoxicity issues with any patients during the study.

IND for Autoimmune Diseases

Animal Studies

Publications

A scientific journal article on MYMD-1 was published in The Journals of Gerontology in August 2022. This manuscript supports our continued efforts to conduct a second Phase 2 Trial for Rheumatoid Arthritis, which was approved for clinical trials in August 2023, and additional autoimmune diseases that we may pursue. Additionally, “MyMD-1 Improves Health Span and Prolongs Life Span in Old Mice: A Noninferiority Study to Rapamycin” by Johns Hopkins Medical School. This journal article details a 12-month mouse trial studying aging and longevity with MYMD-1. We also completed several in vitro studies from human primary cell-based BioMap systems at Eurofins contrasting MYMD-1 versus Rapamycin further supporting our transition to Rheumatoid Arthritis.

In November 2022, MyMD published “A Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Single Ascending, and Multiple Dose Phase 1 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Oral Dose Isomyosamine Capsules in Healthy Adult Subjects” Authors: Jenna Brager, Chris Chapman, Leonard Dunn, and Adam Kaplin in Drug Research. This became available in print in February 28, 2023. This journal article details the results from the Phase 1 clinical trial.

Later, an abstract was accepted for presentation at the British Society of Immunology, Liverpool, UK in December 2022. “Pharmacology and clinical profile of MYMD-1^® (isomyosamine), an oral, selective, next-generation, TNF- α inhibitor that crosses the blood brain barrier” authored by Jenna Brager, Ronald Christopher, Adam Kaplin, and Chris Chapman.

Moving in to the 2023, an abstract was accepted for presentation at the Society of Toxicology to be presented in March 2023, entitled, “A Naturally Occurring Novel Therapeutic and Oral Selective Inhibitor of TNFa, MYMD-1 (Isomyosamine), Significantly Reduced the Inflammation and Disease Severity in Murine Model of Collagen Antibody-Induced Arthritis” authored by Chris Chapman and Sonia Edaye.

An abstract for submission of the Phase II study to the Journal of Immunology or similar upon final development of the clinical safety report.

MyMD with its partner Frontage Laboratories plans to submit an abstract to the 39^th Japanese Society for the Study of Xenobiotics (JSSX) and 26^th North American Meeting of International Society for the Study of Xenobiotics (ISSX) in Honolulu, Hawaii; September 15-18, 2024. Identification of the Major Circulating Norcotinine and Elucidation of the Mechanism of Clearance of MYMD-1 in Humans. Role of Aldehyde Oxidase and CYP2A6.

All publications and abstracts support the continued development of MYMD-1^® across various indications.

IND for Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis

The company completed CYP in vitro studies which concluded that clinical drug-drug interactions are not expected with MYMD-1. CYP induction is the most commonly studied form of induction in drug metabolism and is required by regulatory authorities.

We had MYMD-1 synthesized in August 2021 to [14C] MYMD-1 radiolabeled product for Mass Balance, Pharmacokinetic, and Metabolism. Analysis of the rat study results demonstrated that MYMD-1 was metabolized extensively throughout the tissues, crosses the blood brain barrier, was cleared in the urine and feces, and there were no nitrosated metabolite biological samples detected.

Lastly, a Metabolite Identification and Quantitation of MYMD-1 in Rat, Dog, and Human Plasma Samples: Metabolites in Safety Testing (MIST) was completed in October 2022. MYMD-1 was extensively metabolized, and was detected at low levels (<5%) in human plasma.

In November 2022, the company published data from the Phase 1 dosing study for MYMD-1 as a treatment for aging. There was a statistically significant decrease in TNF-α levels (p-value <0.05) found in one MYMD-1 treated subjects cohort, but no change in the levels in subjects given placebo.

Final efficacy data from the Phase 2 study is expected in 2024. We anticipate that we will review the safety and efficacy of this study and present the mandatory end of Phase 2 data to the FDA.

On July 27, 2021, Eurofins showed Commonality in a Comparative Study with FDA-Approved Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Autoimmune Drugs Used for Arthritis, Colitis and Dermatitis. On October 26, 2021, our President and Chief Medical Officer, Chris Chapman, M.D., was named Honoree of the year by the Arthritis Foundation.

On August 5, 2021, our lead product candidate MYMD-1 was shown to suppress cytokines, which are the major cause of death in COVID-19 patients, in a human cell study. The company plans to consult with the FDA on this indication for post COVID-19 immune mediated depression in the second quarter 2024. During this time, MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also expects to seek additional FDA guidance on depression in MS patients under an Orphan Drug Designation (ODD).

We have an active IND to start a Phase 2 study for the indication Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, and plan to present the FDA with a protocol for this pilot Phase 2 study in the fourth quarter 2024.

We intend to begin long-term reproductive toxicity studies in the fourth quarter 2022. These will include study of Fertility and Early Embryonic Development to Implantation in Mice, and study for Effects on Embryo Fetal Development in Mice and Rabbits with a toxicokinetic evaluation. These studies will continue to support long-term dosing in humans.

In manufacturing, we will continue to provide GMP MYMD-1 capsules for Phase 2 clinical trials. We plan to continue analytical analysis to provide GMP product other that capsules for long-term human trials.

We have received domestic patent protection for MYMD-1, including its use in methods of extending lifespan and treating arthritis, autoimmune diseases, and inflammatory and age-related disorders including sarcopenia. We will continue to prosecute patents to protect intellectual property for MYMD-1 in the United States and abroad. Patent Issued March 26, 2024: US Application 17/851,862: Method of Treating Diseases of the Visual System.

Supera-CBD Product Candidate

Data from Eurofins studies involving human primary cell-based BioMap system demonstrated that Supera-CBD delivers an extremely potent therapeutic benefit of 8,000 times that of plant-derived CBD at activating CB2 receptors, permitting its delivery at a very low non-toxic dose.

On August 10, 2021 the company was awarded U.S. Patent 11,085,047 B2, titled “Synthetic Cannabinoid Compounds for Treatment of Substance Addiction and Other Disorders,” covering the Super-CBD product candidate and its pharmaceutical formulations. During 2021 and 2022 corresponding foreign patents were awarded in Australia, Canada, Europe, Israel, and South Korea, and patents are pending in China and Japan.

Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers presented Supera-CBD data at the 3^rd annual Neuroimmunology Drug Development Summit on April 26, 2021.

The company presented data referencing Super-CBD at the 4^th Annual International Cannabinoid Summit on September 9, 2021.

On March 2, 2023, we announced that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has conducted a scientific review and determined that it would not Supera-CBD a controlled substance or listed chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its governing regulations. We believe that this decision will expedite future research involving Supera-CBD by relieving us or our research partners from having to comply with regulations relating to controlled substances.

We plan to continue our preclinical program starting genotoxicity studies in Europe. Those studies include:

A study of Behavioral Biology at Johns Hopkins University Supera-CBD vs. CBD Acute Pain and Inflammation begins has been funded for 2022 and 2023.

In manufacturing, we expect to continue providing GMP Supera-CBD materials for the preclinical toxicity programs. We plan to continue analytical analysis to provide GMP materials for long term toxicity and Human trials.

An example of continued efforts include the JHM Research is conducting a study with MYMD-1 and L/R-Supera-CBD for Depression and Anxiety.

Available information

Our website address is www.mymd.com. We do not intend our website address to be an active link or to otherwise incorporate by reference the contents of the website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The SEC maintains an Internet website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

An investment in our Common Stock involves a high degree of risk. Before deciding whether to invest in our securities, you should consider carefully the risks described below, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the other information and documents we file with the SEC. Our business, financial condition and operating results can be affected by a number of factors, whether currently known or unknown, including but not limited to those described below, any one or more of which could, directly, or indirectly, cause our actual financial condition and operating results to vary materially from past, or from anticipated future, financial condition and operating results. Any of these factors in whole or in part, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and stock price.

The following discussion of risk factors contains forward-looking statements. These risk factors may be important to understanding other statements in this Form 10-K. The following information should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto and with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risk Factor Summary

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

Risks Related to our Business

Risks Related to our Product Development and Regulatory Approval

Risks Related to Commercialization and Manufacturing

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Series F Convertible Preferred Stock

In addition, we face other business, financial, operational and legal risks and uncertainties set forth under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to our Business

Our financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis; we must raise additional capital to fund our operations in order to continue as a going concern.

In its report dated April 1, 2024, Morison Cogen LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as we have suffered recurring losses from operations and have insufficient liquidity to fund our future operations. If we are unable to improve our liquidity position, we may not be able to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result if we are unable to continue as a going concern and, therefore, be required to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities other than in the normal course of business which could cause investors to suffer the loss of all or a substantial portion of their investment. As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $2.7 million of cash. In order to have sufficient cash to fund our operations in the future, we will need to raise additional equity or debt capital and cannot provide any assurance that we will be successful in doing so. If are unable to raise sufficient capital to fund our operations, we may need to delay, reduce or eliminate certain research and development programs or other operations, sell some or all of our assets or merge with another entity.

We expect that we will need to raise additional funding before we can expect to become profitable from any potential future sales of our product candidates. This additional financing may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

We will require substantial future capital in order to complete planned and future pre-clinical and clinical development for MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD and potentially commercialize these product candidates. We expect increased spending levels in connection with our clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to commercial launch, product sales, medical affairs, regulatory, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations before any commercial revenue may occur.

Any additional capital raised through the sale of equity or equity-backed securities may dilute our stockholders’ ownership percentages and could also result in a decrease in the market value of our equity securities.

The terms of any securities issued by us in future capital transactions may be more favorable to new investors, and may include preferences, superior voting rights and the issuance of warrants or other derivative securities, which may have a further dilutive effect on the holders of any of our securities then outstanding.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in pursuing future capital financing, including investment banking fees, legal fees, accounting fees, securities law compliance fees, printing and distribution expenses and other costs. We may also be required to recognize non-cash expenses in connection with certain securities we issue, such as convertible notes and warrants, which may adversely impact our financial condition.

Additional capital might not be available when we need it and our actual cash requirements might be greater than anticipated. If we require additional capital at a time when investment in its industry or in the marketplace in general is limited, we might not be able to raise funding on favorable terms, if at all. If we are not able to obtain financing when needed or on terms favorable to us, we may need to delay, reduce or eliminate certain research and development programs or other operations, sell some or all of our assets or merge with another entity.

The market price of our Common Stock has been and may continue to be subject to significant fluctuations and volatility, and the stockholders of the Company may be unable to resell their shares at a profit and may incur losses.

The market price of our Common Stock has been and could continue to be subject to significant fluctuation following. Market prices for securities of life sciences and biopharmaceutical companies in particular have historically been volatile and have shown extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. Broad market and industry factors, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions or interest rate changes, may seriously affect the market price of our Common Stock, regardless of the actual operating performance of the combined company. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our Common Stock to fluctuate include:

In the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market prices of particular companies’ securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. Litigation of this type, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources of the Company. Any adverse determination in any such litigation or any amounts paid to settle any such actual or threatened litigation could require that we make significant payments.

Moreover, pandemics, inflation, war and other macroeconomic and geopolitical factors have resulted in significant financial market volatility and uncertainty in recent years. A continuation or worsening of the levels of market disruption and volatility seen in the recent past could have an adverse effect on our ability to access capital, on our business, results of operations and financial condition, and on the market price of our Common Stock.

We have a history of operating losses, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. We anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. If we fails to obtain additional funding to conduct our planned research and development efforts, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercial development efforts.

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Our operations to date have been limited primarily to business planning, raising capital and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates. We have never generated any revenue from product sales. We have not obtained regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates and we have funded our operations to date through proceeds from private placements of Common Stock and a line of credit from an affiliate of MyMD’s founder.

We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception. We incurred net losses attributable to shareholders of $8,218,163 and $15,197,336 for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $101,977,067. Substantially all our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we intend to continue to conduct research and development, clinical testing, regulatory compliance activities, manufacturing activities, and, if any of our product candidates is approved, sales and marketing activities that, together with anticipated general and administrative expenses, will likely result in the company incurring significant losses for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

MyMD’s predecessor, MyMD Florida, was formed in late 2014. Our operations to date have been limited primarily to business planning, raising capital and conducting research and development activities for our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to complete clinical trials of our product candidates, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability are speculative and no assurances can be given about our future performance.

Our stockholders may not realize a benefit from the Merger commensurate with the ownership dilution they experienced in connection with the Merger.

If we are unable to realize the full strategic and financial benefits currently anticipated from the Merger, our stockholders will have experienced substantial dilution of their ownership interests in their respective pre-Merger companies without receiving any commensurate benefit, or only while receiving part of the commensurate benefit to the extent the combined organization is able to realize only part of the strategic and financial benefits anticipated at the time of the Merger. Furthermore, if we fail to realize the intended benefits of the Merger, the market price of our Common Stock could decline to the extent that the market price reflects those benefits.

After the Merger and the Contribution Transaction were consummated, the business operations, strategies and focus of the Company fundamentally changed, and these changes may not result in an improvement in the value of our Common Stock.

Following the Merger, our primary products are MyMD Florida’s therapeutic platforms: MYMD-1, a clinical-stage immunometabolic regulator and Supera-CBD, a pre-clinical stage patented synthetic CBD analog. We expect to incur losses as we develop our product candidates, and our product candidates, may never get approved by the FDA or, even if approved for marketing, may not be profitable. The failure to successfully develop product candidates will significantly diminish the anticipated benefits of the Merger and have a material adverse effect on our business. There is no assurance that our business operations, strategies or focus will be successful, which could depress the value of our Common Stock.

The Contribution Transaction poses risks for our ongoing operations, including, among others:

As a result of the foregoing, we may be unable to realize the full strategic and financial benefits originally anticipated from the Contribution Transaction, and we cannot assure you that the Contribution Transaction will be accretive in the near term or at all. Furthermore, if we fail to realize the intended benefits of the Contribution Transaction, the market price of our Common Stock could decline to the extent that the market price reflects those benefits.

The concentration of the capital stock ownership with insiders of the Company will likely limit the ability of our stockholders to influence corporate matters.

The executive officers, directors, five percent or greater stockholders, and the respective affiliated entities of the Company, in the aggregate, beneficially owned more than 10% of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, had, and continue to have, control over matters that require approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Corporate actions might be taken even if other stockholders oppose them. This concentration of ownership might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a corporate transaction that other stockholders may view as beneficial.

Certain stockholders could attempt to influence changes within the Company, which could adversely affect our operations, financial condition and the value of our Common Stock.

Our stockholders may from time to time seek to acquire a controlling stake in the Company, engage in proxy solicitations, advance stockholder proposals or otherwise attempt to effect changes. Campaigns by stockholders to effect changes at publicly traded companies are sometimes led by investors seeking to increase short-term stockholder value through actions such as financial restructuring, increased debt, special dividends, stock repurchases or sales of assets or the entire company. Responding to proxy contests and other actions by activist stockholders can be costly and time-consuming and could disrupt our operations and divert the attention of our Board of Directors and senior management. These actions could adversely affect our operations, financial condition, and the value of our Common Stock.

We must attract and retain highly skilled employees to succeed.

To succeed, we must recruit, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan, harm our results of operations and increase our capabilities to successfully commercialize MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates. The competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business or to recruit suitable replacement personnel.

Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be limited.

We operate in a highly competitive industry.

We face, and will continue to face, intense competition from large pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as academic and research institutions pursuing research and development of technologies, drugs or other therapies that would compete with our products or product candidates. The pharmaceutical market is highly competitive, subject to rapid technological change and significantly affected by existing rival drugs and medical procedures, new product introductions and the market activities of other participants. Our competitors may develop products more rapidly or more effectively than us. If our competitors are more successful in commercializing their products than us, their success could adversely affect our competitive position and harm our business prospects and may also lead to the diversion of funding away from us and toward other companies.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations will involve the use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also may produce hazardous waste products. We generally anticipate contracting with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We will not be able to eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from any use by us of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses, we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or deficiencies in our cyber-security or those of third-party providers.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and our third-party providers rely on electronic communications and information system to conduct our operations. We and our third-party providers have been, and may continue to be, targeted by parties using fraudulent e-mails and other communications in attempts to misappropriate bank accounting information, passwords, or other personal information or to introduce viruses or other malware to our information systems. Between August and October 2021, we experienced a cybersecurity incident. A third-party forensic technology company’s investigation confirmed that we were a victim of wire fraud due to a compromised electronic mail account. As of the date of this filing, we have identified losses totaling $1,260,864 related to this incident, net of amounts recovered. Following the incident, we have taken measures to enhance our electronic mail security and have modified our internal procedures to ensure the authenticity of payment instructions and we continue to evaluate additional measures for improving cybersecurity. Despite these prophylactic measures, the risk of such cyber-attacks against us or our third-party providers and business partners remains a serious issue. Cybersecurity incidents are pervasive, and the risks of cybercrime are complex and continue to evolve. Although we are making significant efforts to maintain the security and integrity of our information systems and are exploring various measures to manage the risk of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that our security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging.

In addition, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, research data, our proprietary business information and that of our suppliers, technical information about our products, clinical trial plans and employee records. Similarly, our third-party providers possess certain of our sensitive data and confidential information. The secure maintenance of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. 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, ransomware, cyber fraud, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyberattacks or cyberintrusions 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 cyberattacks or cyberintrusions, 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. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, encrypted, lost or stolen. Any such access, inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information or other loss of information, including our data being breached at third-party providers, could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability or financial loss under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, disruption of our operations or our product development programs and damage to our reputation, which could adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to our Product Development and Regulatory Approval

With regard to our Supera-CBD product candidate, we must conduct pre-clinical testing and prepare and submit an IND to the FDA. With regard to both our MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD product candidates, we must conduct all phases of clinical studies, which will likely take several years and substantial expenses to complete, before we can submit an application for marketing approval to the FDA, and we may be required to complete additional post-market or “Phase 4” studies after application or approval. There is no guarantee that we will complete such clinical development in a timely manner or at all or that we will obtain or maintain regulatory approval for either product candidate.

Potential Risks

Clinical drug development is a lengthy, expensive, and inherently uncertain process, and we may experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

The FDA must approve any new drug products before they can be marketed in the United States, and such approval is contingent upon the collection of sufficient safety- and efficacy-data from preclinical and clinical studies. We must complete preclinical development and conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates for their respective targeted indications. With regard to Supera-CBD, we are still in the pre-clinical stage, and we are in relatively early clinical stages with regard to certain indications for which MyMD-1 is being developed and in pre-clinical stages for others. Clinical trials are expensive, difficult to design and implement, and can take many years to complete, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in nonclinical studies and clinical trials and, nonetheless, were denied marketing approval for such candidates due to insufficient safety or efficacy data and/or other clinical-study deficiencies. It is impossible to predict whether we will be able to prove that either or both of our product candidates are safe and effective for any of the indications for which they are, respectively, being developed and, accordingly, when they will be approved for commercialization in the United States for any given indication, if ever.

After completing the requisite preclinical testing, IND submission, internal review board (“IRB”) review, and any other applicable early-development obligations, sponsors must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates. We have completed such early-stage preclinical testing and IND-submission for some, but not all, indications for which MyMD-1 is being developed and are currently working towards completion of such pre-IND activities for Supera-CBD. Even if the results of our pre-clinical testing and clinical trials are favorable, we expect our product candidates to remain in clinical development for several years before they may be considered for regulatory approval, and clinical development of either or both candidates for one or more targeted indications may take significantly longer to complete and may never be successful. Failures in connection with one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing.

Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

If any of the clinical trials of any of our current or future therapeutic candidates do not produce favorable results or are found to have been conducted in violation of the FDA’s or other regulatory body’s standards governing such studies, our ability to request and obtain regulatory approval for the therapeutic candidate may be adversely impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

If we are unable to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize MYMD-1, Supera-CBD or other future product candidates, or if we experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We have invested a substantial amount of effort and financial resources in MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD. We plan to initiate Phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, aging and multiple sclerosis with MYMD-1 and IND-enabling pre-clinical studies of Supera-CBD to enable submission of an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application for a Phase 1 in healthy volunteers followed by clinical trials in epilepsy, addiction and anxiety disorders. In order to conduct human clinical trials, we are required obtain approval from Institutional Review Boards (“IRBs”) or Ethics committees. IRBs are independent committee organizations that operate in compliance with U.S. federal regulations (including, but not limited to 21 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 56, and 45 C.F.R. Part 46) in order to help protect the rights of research subjects under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). IRBs provide expertise in examining research for its ethical implications, including research involving vulnerable populations, such as pediatrics, critically ill, and cognitively impaired participants. There is no guarantee that an IRB will approve our current product candidates for human clinical trials. Without IRB approval, the Company would not be able to perform clinical research on humans and our products would not be able to move through the regulatory approval process.

Our ability to generate product revenue will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Each of our programs and product candidates will require further clinical and/or pre-clinical development, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining pre-clinical, clinical and commercial manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD and our other product candidates must be authorized for marketing by the FDA and certain other foreign regulatory agencies before we may commercialize any of our product candidates.

The success of our product candidates depends on multiple factors, including:

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

We may not have the resources to conduct clinical protocols sufficient to yield data suitable for publication in peer-reviewed journals and our inability to do so in the future could have an adverse effect on marketing our products effectively.

In order for our products targeted for use by hospital laboratory professionals and healthcare providers to be widely adopted, we would have to conduct clinical protocols that are designed to yield data suitable for publication in peer-reviewed journals. These studies are often time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive to execute. We have not previously had the resources to effectively implement such clinical programs within our clinical development activities and may not be able to do so in the future. In addition, if a protocol is initiated, the results of such protocol may ultimately not support the anticipated positioning and benefit proposition for the product. Either of these scenarios could hinder our ability to market our products, and revenue may decline.

Success in pre-clinical studies and earlier clinical trials for our product candidates may not be indicative of the results that may be obtained in later clinical trials, including our Phase 2 clinical trial for MYMD-1, which may delay or prevent obtaining regulatory approval.

Clinical development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of results in later-stage clinical trials, and successful results from early or small clinical trials may not be replicated or show as favorable an outcome in later-stage or larger clinical trials, even if successful. We will be required to demonstrate through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. The conduct of Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials, and the submission of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) is a complicated process. We have not previously conducted any clinical trials, and have limited experience in preparing, submitting and supporting regulatory filings. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials and other requirements in a way that leads to NDA submission and approval of any product candidate we are developing.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development, and there is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. In addition, different methodologies, assumptions and applications we utilize to assess particular safety or efficacy parameters may yield different statistical results. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, these data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Pre-clinical and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways. Accordingly, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could interpret these data in different ways from us or our partners, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. If our study data do not consistently or sufficiently demonstrate the safety or efficacy of any of our product candidates, including MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD, to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, then the regulatory approvals for such product candidates could be significantly delayed as we work to meet approval requirements, or, if we are not able to meet these requirements, such approvals could be withheld or withdrawn.

Even if we complete the necessary pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate and the approval may be for a narrower indication than we seek.

Prior to commercialization in the United States, MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA for their respective target indication(s). The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the U.S. and abroad, is expensive and takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have not received approval to market MYMD-1, Supera-CBD or any of our other product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have limited experience in submitting and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals, and, in the event regulatory authorities indicate that we may submit such applications, we may be unable to do so as quickly and efficiently as desired. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive pre-clinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept or file any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional pre-clinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from pre-clinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate.

Approval of MYMD-1, Supera-CBD or our other product candidates may be delayed or refused for many reasons, including:

Even if our product candidates meet their pre-specified safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner and may not consider such the clinical trial results sufficient to grant, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, contraindications or Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”). These regulatory authorities may also grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive post-marketing regulatory requirements and could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if it experiences unanticipated problems with our product candidates, when and if any of them are approved.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and potential commercialization, including their testing, manufacturing, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other U.S. and international regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements relating to manufacturing, including current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”), quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, including periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to providers and recordkeeping. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMPs.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of any approved product.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our product candidates, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

The FDA also closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure that they are marketed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding use of their products. For example, under applicable FDA marketing regulations, prescription drug promotions must be consistent with and not contrary to approved labeling, present a “fair balance” between the product’s risks and benefits, be truthful and not false or misleading, and be sufficiently substantiated with appropriate documentary evidence, among numerous other requirements. If we promote our products that are approved for marketing in the United States, if any, in a manner inconsistent with FDA-approved labeling or otherwise not in compliance with FDA regulations, we may be subject to enforcement action. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”) relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigation or prosecution by the DOJ or other applicable agencies and could give rise to ancillary violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws and similar laws in international jurisdictions. Additionally, our marketing activities relating to any products we may commercialize in the United States in the future may also be subject to enforcement by the FTC and/or state attorneys general, and we may face consumer class-action liability if our marketing practices are actually or allegedly misleading or deceptive.

In addition to the requirements applicable to approved drug products, we may also be subject to enforcement action in connection with any promotion of an investigational new drug. A sponsor or investigator, or any person acting on behalf of a sponsor or investigator, may not represent in a promotional context that an investigational new drug is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is under investigation or otherwise promote the therapeutic candidate. Sponsors must strike the often difficult balance of communicating sufficient information about its product candidates to inform investors and engaging in valid scientific exchanges with the medical community without crossing the often-difficult-to-ascertain line into “promotion,” which is not defined by regulation but is generally interpreted broadly by FDA. Accordingly, if FDA finds any of our communications regarding MyMD-1 or Supera-CBD to be promotional, we may be subject to a wide range of enforcement actions, and our candidates’ prospects for regulatory approval may be adversely affected.

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above could give rise to material reputational harm to our business and our current, and any future, product candidates we may develop and may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Our failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions would prevent us from marketing our product candidates outside the U.S.

To market and sell MYMD-1, Supera-CBD or our other product candidates in other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time and data required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the U.S. generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the U.S., we must secure product reimbursement approvals before regulatory authorities will approve the product for sale in that country. Failure to obtain foreign regulatory approvals or non-compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries.

If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Our failure to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory authorities in another country may significantly diminish the commercial prospects of that product candidate and our business prospects could decline.

Our development program for Supera-CBD, a synthetic analog of CBD, is in its infancy and subject to substantial uncertainty and may not yield commercial results and is subject to significant regulatory risks.

We are only in the pre-clinical stage of development for Supera-CBD, which is essentially the earliest stage of a candidate’s development process and must be followed by regulatory submissions (such as, an IND application and FDA’s acceptance thereof), IRB approval, as well as the complex, onerous clinical-trial process (which must be conducted in accordance with FDA’s IND regulations), and ultimately, NDA submission, the approval of which is not guaranteed. There can be no assurance that our development program for Supera-CBD, a synthetic analog of CBD, will be successful, or that any research and development and product testing efforts will result in commercially saleable products, or that the market will accept or respond positively to products based on Supera-CBD.

Federal Regulation of CBD. The market for cannabinoids is heavily regulated. Synthetic cannabinoids may be viewed as qualifying as controlled substances under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) and may be subject to a high degree of regulation including, among other things, certain registration, licensing, manufacturing, security, record keeping, reporting, import, export, inspection by DEA clinical and non-clinical studies, insurance and other requirements administered by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and/or the FDA.

State Regulation of CBD. Individual states and local jurisdictions have also established controlled substance laws and regulations, which may differ from U.S. federal law. States have also developed CBD-specific laws and regulations that govern a wide range of CBD-related activities, from cultivation to processing to marketing. There is substantial variation among states’ CBD laws, and we will have to devote substantial time, expenses, and resources toward compliance, and such laws are also subject to ongoing evolution and, thus, must be actively monitored. We or our business partners may be required to obtain separate state or country registrations, permits or licenses in order to be able to develop produce, sell, store and transport cannabinoids.

Compliance is Complex and Costly. Complying with laws and regulations relating to cannabinoids is evolving, complex and expensive, and may divert management’s attention and resources from other aspects of our business. Failure to maintain compliance with such laws and regulations may result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA, FDA or state agencies may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings.

Clinical trials. Because synthetic CBD products may be regulated as controlled substances in the U.S., to conduct clinical trials in the U.S., each of our research sites must submit a research protocol to the DEA and obtain and maintain a DEA researcher registration that will allow those sites to handle and dispense products based on Supera-CBD and to obtain product from our manufacturer. If the DEA delays or denies the grant of a research registration to one or more research sites, the clinical trial could be significantly delayed, and we could lose clinical trial sites.

Negative public perception of cannabis-related businesses, misconceptions about the nature of our business or Supera-MD, and regulatory uncertainties relating to the legality of cannabinoids could each have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We believe the cannabinoid industry is highly dependent upon consumer perception regarding the safety, efficacy, quality, and legality of cannabinoids, whether naturally derived or synthetic. Consumer perception of cannabinoid products can be significantly influenced by scientific research or findings, regulatory investigations, litigation, media attention, and other publicity regarding the consumption of CBD products. There can be no assurance that future scientific research, findings, regulatory proceedings, litigation, media attention, or other research findings or publicity will be favorable to the CBD market or Supera-CBD, in particular. Our dependence upon consumer perceptions with regard to Supera-CBD, particularly once it is approved for commercialization, if ever, means that adverse scientific research reports, findings, regulatory proceedings, litigation, media attention, or other publicity relating to cannabinoid products, generally, or any particular cannabinoid products or derivatives, in particular, regardless of merit or accuracy, could have a material adverse effect on our business, the development of, or ultimate commercial demand for (if applicable), Supera-CBD. Such adverse publicity or other negative media attention could arise even if the adverse effects reportedly associated with such products resulted from consumers’ failure to consume such products appropriately or as directed. Any adverse publicity or other similar occurrences affecting consumer perception may have a material adverse impact on our reputation, perception of Supera-CBD, and our ability to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for Supera-CBD and its prospective commercial viability.

Risks Related to Commercialization and Manufacturing

The commercial success of our product candidates, including MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD, will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by providers, patients, patient advocacy groups, third-party payors and the general medical community.

Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities internationally, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend, in part, on the acceptance of providers, patients and third-party payors of our product candidates, as medically necessary, cost-effective and safe. Any product that we commercialize may not gain acceptance by providers, patients, patient advocacy groups, third-party payors and the general medical community. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on several factors, including:

Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched.

The pricing, insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate product revenue.

If we are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product candidates from third-party payors, the adoption of those product candidates and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved.

We expect that coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or will be reimbursed by government authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the U.S., third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs will be covered and reimbursed. The Medicare program covers certain individuals aged 65 or older, disabled or suffering from end-stage renal disease. The Medicaid program, which varies from state to state, covers certain individuals and families who have limited financial means. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product, however, does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved.

In addition to government and private payors, professional organizations such as the American Medical Association (“AMA”), can influence decisions about coverage and reimbursement for new products by determining standards for care. In addition, many private payors contract with commercial vendors who sell software that provide guidelines that attempt to limit utilization of, and therefore reimbursement for, certain products deemed to provide limited benefit to existing alternatives. Such organizations may set guidelines that limit reimbursement or utilization of our product candidates. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more product candidates for which our collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Outside the U.S., international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. 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 candidate to other available therapies. In general, the prices of products under such systems are substantially lower than in the U.S. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the U.S., the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the U.S. and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the U.S. and internationally, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of certain third-party payors, such as health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the healthcare market. Recently there have been instances in which third-party payors have refused to reimburse treatments for patients for whom the treatment is indicated in the FDA-approved product labeling. Even if we are successful in obtaining FDA approvals to commercialize our product candidates, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to secure reimbursement for all patients for whom treatment with our product candidates is indicated.

If third parties on which we depend to conduct our planned pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, do not perform as contractually required, fail to satisfy regulatory or legal requirements or miss expected deadlines, our development program could be delayed with adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely on third party CROs, CMOs, consultants and others to design, conduct, supervise and monitor key activities relating to, discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, and we intend to do the same for future activities relating to existing and future programs. Because we rely on third parties and do not have the ability to conduct all required testing, discovery, manufacturing, preclinical studies or clinical trials independently, we have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials than we would if we conducted them on our own. These investigators, CROs, CMOs and consultants are not our employees, and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our programs. The third parties we contract with might not be diligent or timely in conducting our discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful, in whole or in part.

If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of pre-clinical studies or clinical trials or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial, as well as in accordance with GLP, GCPs and other applicable laws, regulations and standards. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. The FDA and other regulatory authorities enforce GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fails to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in its clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving its marketing applications. We cannot assure that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials have complied with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced in accordance with cGMPs. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which could delay or prevent the receipt of regulatory approvals. Any such event could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid pharmacological change and it is possible that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may harm our business, financial condition and our ability to successfully market or commercialize MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly changing technologies, competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We are aware of several companies focused on developing immunometabolic treatments in various indications as well as several companies addressing other treatments for anti-aging, anxiety and depression. We may also face competition from large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, government agencies and public and private research institutions that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Several companies are focused on developing treatments for immunometabolic dysregulation in treatment of autoimmune disorders.

Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their strategic partners, may have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we do, such as larger research and development, clinical, marketing and manufacturing organizations. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any product candidates that we may develop. Competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market, if ever. Additionally, new or advanced technologies developed by our competitors may render our current or future product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors.

The manufacture of drugs is complex, and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of MYMD-1, Supera-CBD or our other product candidates for clinical trials, our ability to obtain marketing approval, or our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

We intend to establish manufacturing relationships with a limited number of suppliers to manufacture raw materials, the drug substance and finished product of any product candidate for which we are responsible for pre-clinical or clinical development. Each supplier may require licenses to manufacture such components if such processes are not owned by the supplier or in the public domain. As part of any marketing approval, a manufacturer and its processes are required to be qualified by the FDA prior to regulatory approval. If supply from the approved vendor is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply. An alternative vendor would need to be qualified through an NDA supplement which could result in further delay. The FDA or other regulatory agencies outside of the U.S. 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.

The process of manufacturing drugs is complex, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks. Manufacturing drugs is highly susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturers, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business. Moreover, if the FDA determines that our CMOs are not in compliance with FDA laws and regulations, including those governing cGMPs, the FDA may deny NDA approval until the deficiencies are corrected or we replace the manufacturer in our NDA with a manufacturer that is in compliance. In addition, approved products and the facilities at which they are manufactured are required to maintain ongoing compliance with extensive FDA requirements and the requirements of other similar agencies, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP requirements. As such, our CMOs are subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMPs. Furthermore, although we do not have day-to-day control over the operations of our CMOs, we are responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including cGMPs.

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with good manufacturing practices, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if our collaborators obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that manufacturers will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

We could be adversely affected if healthcare reform measures substantially change the market for medical care or healthcare coverage in the U.S.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148) (the “ACA”) and on March 30, 2010, he signed the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” (P.L. 111-152), collectively commonly referred to as the “Healthcare Reform Law.” The Healthcare Reform Law included a number of new rules regarding health insurance, the provision of healthcare, conditions to reimbursement for healthcare services provided to Medicare and Medicaid patients, and other healthcare policy reforms. Through the law-making process, substantial changes have been and continue to be made to the current system for paying for healthcare in the U.S., including changes made to extend medical benefits to certain Americans who lacked insurance coverage and to contain or reduce healthcare costs (such as by reducing or conditioning reimbursement amounts for healthcare services and drugs, and imposing additional taxes, fees, and rebate obligations on pharmaceutical and medical device companies). This legislation was one of the most comprehensive and significant reforms ever experienced by the U.S. in the healthcare industry and has significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. This legislation has impacted the scope of healthcare insurance and incentives for consumers and insurance companies, among others. Additionally, the Healthcare Reform Law’s provisions were designed to encourage providers to find cost savings in their clinical operations. Pharmaceuticals represent a significant portion of the cost of providing care. This environment has caused changes in the purchasing habits of consumers and providers and resulted in specific attention to the pricing negotiation, product selection and utilization review surrounding pharmaceuticals. This attention may result in products we may commercialize or promote in the future being chosen less frequently or the pricing being substantially lowered. At this stage, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of the direct or indirect impact of the Healthcare Reform Law on us.

These structural changes could entail further modifications to the existing system of private payors and government programs (such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program), creation of government-sponsored healthcare insurance sources, or some combination of both, as well as other changes. Restructuring the coverage of medical care in the U.S. could impact the reimbursement for prescribed drugs and pharmaceuticals, including our current commercial products, those we and our development or commercialization partners are currently developing or those that we may commercialize or promote in the future. If reimbursement for the products we currently commercialize or promote, any product we may commercialize or promote, or approved therapeutic candidates is substantially reduced or otherwise adversely affected in the future, or rebate obligations associated with them are substantially increased, it could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Extending medical benefits to those who currently lack coverage will likely result in substantial costs to the U.S. federal government, which may force significant additional changes to the healthcare system in the U.S. Much of the funding for expanded healthcare coverage may be sought through cost savings. While some of these savings may come from realizing greater efficiencies in delivering care, improving the effectiveness of preventive care and enhancing the overall quality of care, much of the cost savings may come from reducing the cost of care and increased enforcement activities. Cost of care could be reduced further by decreasing the level of reimbursement for medical services or products (including our any product we may commercialize or promote in the future), or by restricting coverage (and, thereby, utilization) of medical services or products. In either case, a reduction in the utilization of, or reimbursement for any product which we receive marketing approval in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Several states and private entities initially mounted legal challenges to the Healthcare Reform Law, in particular, the ACA, and they continue to litigate various aspects of the legislation. On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court generally upheld the provisions of the ACA at issue as constitutional. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legislation improperly required the states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more individuals. As a result, states have a choice as to whether they will expand the number of individuals covered by their respective state Medicaid programs. Some states have not expanded their Medicaid programs and have chosen to develop other cost-saving and coverage measures to provide care to currently uninsured individuals. Many of these efforts to date have included the institution of Medicaid-managed care programs. The manner in which these cost-saving and coverage measures are implemented could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Further, the healthcare regulatory environment has seen significant changes in recent years and is still in flux. Legislative initiatives to modify, limit, replace, or repeal the ACA and judicial challenges have continued. We cannot predict the impact on our business of future legislative and legal challenges to the ACA or other aspects of the Healthcare Reform Law or other changes to the current laws and regulations. The financial impact of U.S. healthcare reform legislation over the next few years will depend on a number of factors, including the policies reflected in implementing regulations and guidance and changes in sales volumes for therapeutics affected by the legislation. From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in the U.S. Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing coverage, reimbursement, and marketing of pharmaceutical products. In addition, third-party payor coverage and reimbursement policies are often revised or interpreted in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products.

During his time in office, former President Trump supported the repeal of all or portions of the ACA. President Trump also issued an executive order in which he stated that it is his administration’s policy to seek the prompt repeal of the ACA and in which he directed executive departments and federal agencies to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of the provisions of the ACA to the maximum extent permitted by law. Congress has enacted legislation that repeals certain portions of the ACA, including but not limited to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December 2017, which included a provision that eliminates the penalty under the ACA’s individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019, as well as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, passed in February 2018, which, among other things, repealed the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which was established by the ACA and was intended to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending).

Additionally, in December 2018, a district court in Texas held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the ACA is, therefore, invalid. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the holding on the individual mandate but remanded the case back to the lower court to reassess whether and how such holding affects the validity of the rest of the ACA. The Fifth Circuit’s decision on the individual mandate was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs (comprised of the state of Texas, as well as numerous other states and certain individuals) did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate and, accordingly, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and instructed the district court to dismiss the case. As a result, the ACA will remain in-effect in its current form for the foreseeable future; however, we cannot predict what additional challenges may arise in the future, the outcome thereof, or the impact any such actions may have on our business.

The Biden administration also introduced various measures in 2021 focusing on healthcare and drug pricing, in particular. For example, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021, and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. On the legislative front, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law on March 11, 2021, which, in relevant part, eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source drugs and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. And, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order entitled, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices” that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. And, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) was signed into law, which will, among other things, allow U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D, although only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for biologics) can be selected by CMS for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. The negotiated prices, which will first become effective in 2026, will be capped at a statutory ceiling price. Beginning in October 2023, the IRA will also penalize drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA also extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025.

There is uncertainty as to what healthcare programs and regulations may be implemented or changed at the federal and/or state level in the U.S. or the effect of any future legislation or regulation. Furthermore, we cannot predict what actions the Biden administration will implement in connection with the Health Reform Law. However, it is possible that such initiatives could have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain approval and/or successfully commercialize products in the U.S. in the future, as applicable.

We are subject to inspection and market surveillance by the FDA to determine compliance with regulatory requirements. If the FDA finds that we have failed to comply, the agency can institute a wide variety of enforcement actions which may materially affect our business operations.

We are subject to inspection and market surveillance by the FDA to determine compliance with regulatory requirements. If the FDA finds that we have failed to comply, with one or more applicable requirements the agency can institute a wide variety of enforcement actions, ranging from a public warning letter to more severe sanctions such as:

Our failure to comply with applicable requirements could lead to an enforcement action that may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The FDA’s ability to review and approve new products may be hindered by a variety of factors, including budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel, statutory, regulatory and policy changes and global health concerns.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities.

The ability of the FDA and other government agencies to properly administer their functions is highly dependent on the levels of government funding and the ability to fill key leadership appointments, among various factors. Delays in filling or replacing key positions could significantly impact the ability of the FDA and other agencies to fulfill their functions and could greatly impact healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.

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

Healthcare providers and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with providers, third-party payors and customers will subject us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Restrictions under applicable U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. 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, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of product candidates from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

Our internal computer systems, or those of its third-party vendors, collaborators, or other contractors may be subject to various federal and state confidentiality and privacy laws in the United States and abroad and could sustain system failures, security breaches, or other disruptions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Numerous international, national, federal, provincial and state laws, including state privacy laws (such as the California Consumer Privacy Act), state security breach notification and information security laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. In addition, most healthcare providers who may, in the future, prescribe and dispense our products in the United States and research institutions in the United States with whom we may collaborate in the future are “covered entities” subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors, or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. We, or the covered entities we engage with, could be subject to a wide range of penalties and sanctions under HIPAA, including criminal penalties if the individually identifiable health information maintained by a covered entity is disclosed in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. Failure to comply with applicable HIPAA requirements or other current and future privacy laws and regulations could result in governmental enforcement actions (including the imposition of significant penalties), criminal and civil liability, and/or adverse publicity that negatively affects our business.

Moreover, we rely on our internal and third-party provided information technology systems and applications to support our operations and to maintain and process company information including personal information, confidential business information and proprietary information. If these information technology systems are subject to cybersecurity attacks, or are otherwise compromised, due to cyberattacks, human error or malfeasance, system errors or otherwise, it may adversely impact our business, disrupt our operations, or lead to the loss, theft, destruction, corruption, or compromise of our information or that of our collaborators, study subjects, or other third-party contractors, as applicable. Such information technology or security events could also lead to legal liability, regulatory investigations or enforcement actions, loss of business, negative media coverage, and reputational damage. While we seek to protect our information technology systems from these types of incidents, the healthcare sector continues to see a high frequency of cyberattacks and increasingly sophisticated threat actors, and our systems and the information maintained within those systems remain potentially vulnerable to data security incidents.

Any of the above-described cyber or other security-related incidents may trigger notification obligations to affected individuals and government agencies, legal claims or proceedings, and liability under foreign, federal, provincial and state laws that protect the privacy and security of personal information. Our proprietary and confidential information may also be accessed. Any one of these events could cause our business to be materially harmed and our results of operations may be adversely impacted. Finally, as cyber threats continue to evolve, and privacy and cybersecurity laws and regulations continue to develop, we may need to invest additional resources to implement new compliance measures, strengthen our information security posture, or respond to cyber threats and incidents.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our success largely depends on our ability to obtain, maintain and protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to ensure their adequate protection.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property protection of our proprietary technologies and product candidates, which include MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and the other product candidates we have in development, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending our patents and other intellectual property rights against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. If we are unable to secure and maintain patent protection for any product or technology we develop, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop may be adversely affected.

The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we may license from or license to third parties and may be reliant on our licensors or licensees to do so. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in issued patents. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with adequate protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we hold or in-license may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our platform advances and product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. In addition, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not provide an adequate scope of protection or otherwise may not be enforceable to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technologies.

We may not be able to adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, which could harm our competitive position.

Our success and future revenue growth will depend, in part, on our ability to protect our intellectual property. We will primarily rely on patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, as well as nondisclosure agreements and other methods, to protect our proprietary technologies or processes. It is possible that competitors or other unauthorized third parties may obtain, copy, use or disclose proprietary technologies and processes, despite efforts by us to protect our proprietary technologies and processes. While we hold rights in several patents, there can be no assurances that any additional patents will be issued, or additional rights will be granted, to us. Even if new patents are issued, the claims allowed may not be sufficiently broad to adequately protect our technology and processes. Our competitors may also be able to develop similar technology independently or design around the patents to which we have rights.

Currently, MyMD has 16 issued U.S. patents, 63 foreign patents, three pending U.S. patent applications, and 10 foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions as Australia, Canada, China, European Union, Israel, Japan and South Korea, which if issued are expected to expire between 2036 and 2041. Although we expect to obtain additional patents and in-licenses in the future, there is no guarantee that we will be able to successfully obtain such patents or in-licenses in a timely manner or at all. Further, any of our rights to existing patents, and any future patents issued to us, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. As such, any rights granted under these patents may not provide us with meaningful protection. Even if foreign patents are granted, effective enforcement in foreign countries may not be available. If our patents or rights to patents do not adequately protect our technology or processes, competitors may be able to offer products similar to our products.

Our potential strategy of obtaining rights to key technologies through in-licenses may not be successful.

The future growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to in-license or otherwise acquire the rights to additional product candidates and technologies. We cannot assure that we will be able to in-license or acquire the rights to any product candidates or technologies from third parties on acceptable terms or at all.

For example, our agreements with certain of our third-party research partners provide that improvements developed in the course of our relationship with a given partner may be owned solely by either us or our third-party research partner, or jointly between us and the third party. If we determine that exclusive rights to such improvements owned solely by a research partner or other third party with whom we collaborate are necessary to commercialize our drug candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may need to obtain an exclusive license from such third party in order to use the improvements and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our drug candidates. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates or allow our competitors or others the opportunity to access technology that is important to our business. We also may need the cooperation of any co-owners of our intellectual property in order to enforce such intellectual property against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

In addition, the in-licensing and acquisition of these technologies is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire product candidates or technologies that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to license rights to us. Furthermore, we may be unable to identify suitable product candidates or technologies within our area of focus. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to suitable product candidates or technologies, our business and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to patent protection, we rely upon know-how and trade secret protection, as well as non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and third-parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable.

It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties, except in certain specified circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and that are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information (or as otherwise permitted by applicable law), are our exclusive property. In the case of consultants and other third parties, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived in connection with the services provided are our exclusive property. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches.

In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information through other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. These measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and any recourse we might take against this type of misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent us from receiving legal recourse. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, such as through a data breach, or if any of that information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed. Additionally, certain trade secret and proprietary information may be required to be disclosed in submissions to regulatory authorities. If such authorities do not maintain the confidential basis of such information or disclose it as part of the basis of regulatory approval, our competitive position could be adversely affected.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we have no knowledge of any claims against us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. To date, none of our employees have been subject to such claims.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent, delay or otherwise interfere with our product discovery and development efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates and/or proprietary technologies infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our field, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods.

If a third party claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex 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 or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization, including by enforcing its patents against us by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. In this regard, patents issued in the U.S. by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof.

We may not have identified all patents, published applications or published literature that affect our business by blocking our ability to commercialize our products, by preventing the patentability of one or more aspects of our products to us or our licensors, or by covering the same or similar technologies that may affect our ability to market our products. For example, we (or the licensor of a product to us) may not have conducted a patent clearance search sufficient to identify potentially obstructing third party patent rights. Moreover, patent applications in the United States are maintained in confidence for up to 18 months after their filing. In some cases, however, patent applications remain confidential in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), for the entire time prior to issuance as a U.S. patent. Patent applications filed in countries outside of the United States are not typically published until at least 18 months from their first filing date. Similarly, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. We cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to invent, or the first to file, patent applications covering our products. We also may not know if our competitors filed patent applications for technology covered by our pending applications or if we were the first to invent the technology that is the subject of our patent applications. Competitors may have filed patent applications or received patents and may obtain additional patents and proprietary rights that block or compete with our patents.

Therefore, there may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents.

If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, or materials used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of those patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our product candidates unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until those patents were to expire or those patents are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of that patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize a product candidate unless we obtain a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In either case, a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, particularly if such patent is owned or controlled by one of our primary competitors. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee time and resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any license of this nature would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates and we may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could significantly harm our business.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful and could result in a finding that such patents are unenforceable or invalid.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid, is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question.

In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. These types of mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). These types of proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents such that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome for any particular patent following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Defense of these types of claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business.

Conversely, we may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings), or we may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) the European Patent Office (“EPO”) or another foreign patent office. Even if successful, the costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, CIPO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, that perception could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our Common Stock. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

We currently have limited intellectual property rights outside the U.S. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. For example, patents covering therapeutic methods of treating humans are not available in many foreign countries. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we do not have or have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

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

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

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign patent agencies also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable laws and rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in irrevocable abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. Were a noncompliance event to occur, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the U.S. and in non-U.S. jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain.

Past or future patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. For example, in March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“America Invents Act”), the U.S. moved from a “first to invent” to a “first-inventor-to-file” patent system. Under our “first-inventor-to-file” system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and establish a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes continue to evolve as the USPTO continues to promulgate new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act and many of the substantive changes to patent law, including the “first-inventor-to-file” provisions, only became effective in March 2013. In addition, the courts have yet to address many of these provisions and the applicability of the act and new regulations on the specific patents discussed in this filing have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. Moreover, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

Recent cases by the U.S. Supreme Court have held that certain methods of treatment or diagnosis are not patent-eligible. U.S. law regarding patent-eligibility continues to evolve. While we do not believe that any of our patents will be found invalid based on these changes to US patent law, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

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

If we do not obtain patent term extension for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, 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, (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”). The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during clinical trials and 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 per product may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. U.S. and ex-U.S. law concerning patent term extensions and foreign equivalents continue to evolve. Even if we were to seek a patent term extension, it may not be granted because of, for example, the failure to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, the failure to apply within applicable deadlines, the failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or any other failure to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period of extension or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration sooner than expected, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Risks Related to Our Series F Preferred Stock

Holders of our Series F Preferred Stock are entitled to certain payments under the Certificate of Designation that may be paid in cash or in shares of Common Stock depending on the circumstances. If we make these payments in cash, it may require the expenditure of a substantial portion of our cash resources. If we make these payments in Common Stock, it may result in substantial dilution to the holders of our Common Stock.

Under the Certificate of Designations (the “Certificate of Designation”) of our Series F Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series F Preferred Stock”), we are required to redeem the shares of Series F Preferred Stock in 12 equal monthly installments, commencing on July 1, 2023. Holders of our Series F Preferred Stock are also entitled to receive dividends, payable in arrears monthly, and dividends payable on installment dates shall be paid as part of the applicable installment amount. Installment amounts are payable, at the company’s election, in shares of Common Stock or, subject to certain limitations, in cash. Installment amounts paid in cash must be paid in the amount of 105% of the applicable payment amount due. For an installment amounts paid in shares of Common Stock, the number of shares of Common Stock shall be calculated by dividing the applicable payment amount due by the “installment conversion price.” The installment conversion price shall be equal to the lower of (i) the Conversion Price (as defined in the Certificate of Designation) in effect as of the applicable payment date and (ii) the greater of (A) 80% of the average of the three lowest closing prices of our Common Stock during the thirty trading day period immediately prior to the date the payment is due or (B) $6.60 (subject to adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar events) or, in any case, such lower amount as permitted, from time to time, by the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Our ability to make payments due to the holders of our Series F Preferred Stock using shares of Common Stock is subject to certain limitations set forth in the Certificate of Designation. If we are unable to make installment payments in shares of Common Stock, we may be forced to make such payments in cash. If we do not have sufficient cash resources to make these payments, we may need to raise additional equity or debt capital, and we cannot provide any assurance that we will be successful in doing so. If are unable to raise sufficient capital to meet our payment obligations, we may need to delay, reduce or eliminate certain research and development programs or other operations, sell some or all of our assets or merge with another entity.

Our ability to make payments due to the holders of our Series F Preferred Stock using cash is also limited by the amount of cash we have on hand at the time such payments are due as well as certain provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”). Further, we intend to make the installment payments due to holders of Series F Preferred Stock in the form of Common Stock to the extent allowed under the Certificate of Designation and applicable law in order to preserve our cash resources. The issuance of shares of Common Stock to the holders of our Series F Preferred Stock with increase the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding and could result in substantial dilution to the existing holders of our Common Stock.

The Certificate of Designation for the Series F Preferred Stock and the warrants issued concurrently therewith contain anti-dilution provisions that may result in the reduction of the conversion price of the Series F Preferred Stock or the exercise price of such warrants in the future. These features may increase the number of shares of Common Stock being issuable upon conversion of the Series F Preferred Stock or upon the exercise of the warrants.

The Certificate of Designation and the warrants issued concurrently with the Series F Preferred Stock (the “February 2023 Warrants”) contain anti-dilution provisions, which provisions require the lowering of the applicable conversion price or exercise, as then in effect, to the purchase price of equity or equity-linked securities issued in subsequent offerings. If in the future, while any of our Series F Preferred Stock or February 2023 Warrants are outstanding, we issue securities for a consideration per share of Common Stock (the “New Issuance Price”) that is less than the Conversion Price of our Series F Preferred Stock or the exercise price of the February 2023 Warrants, as then in effect, we will be required, subject to certain limitations and adjustments as provided in the Certificate of Designation or the February 2023 Warrants, to reduce the Conversion Price or the exercise price to be equal to the New Issuance Price, which will result in a greater number of shares of Common Stock being issuable upon conversion or exercise, as applicable, which in turn will increase the dilutive effect of such conversion or exercise on existing holders of our Common Stock. It is possible that we will not have a sufficient number of shares available to satisfy the conversion of the Series F Preferred Stock or the exercise of the February 2023 Warrants if we enter into a future transaction that reduces the applicable Conversion Price or exercise price. If we do not have a sufficient number of available shares for any Series F Preferred Stock conversions or February 2023 Warrant exercises, we may need to seek shareholder approval to increase the number of authorized shares of our Common Stock, which may not be possible and will be time consuming and expensive. The potential for such additional issuances may depress the price of our Common Stock regardless of our business performance and may make it difficult for us to raise additional equity capital while any of our Series F Preferred Stock or February 2023 Warrants are outstanding.

Under the February 2023 Securities Purchase Agreement we are subject to certain restrictive covenants that may make it difficult to procure additional financing.

The Securities Purchase Agreement pursuant to which we issued the Series F Preferred Stock (“February 2023 SPA”) contains the following restrictive covenants: (i) until all of the February 2023 Warrants are exercised, we agreed not to enter into any variable rate transactions; (ii) for approximately ten months after the execution of the February 2023 SPA, we agreed not to issue or sell any equity security or convertible security, subject to certain exceptions; and (iii) we agreed to offer to the investors party to the February 2023 SPA, until the later of no Series F Preferred Shares being outstanding and the maturity date of the Series F Preferred Shares, the opportunity to participate in any subsequent securities offerings by us. If we require additional funding while these restrictive covenants remain in effect, we may be unable to effect a financing transaction while remaining in compliance with the terms of the February 2023 SPA, or we may be forced to seek a waiver from the investors party to the February 2023 SPA.

General Risk Factors

Offers or availability for sale of a substantial number of shares of our Common Stock may cause the price of our Common Stock to decline.

Sales of a significant number of shares of our Common Stock in the public market could harm the market prices of our Common Stock and make it more difficult for us to raise funds through future offerings of Common Stock or other securities. Our stockholders and the holders of our options and warrants may sell substantial amounts of our Common Stock in the public market. In addition, we may be required to issue shares of Common Stock to the holders of our Series F Preferred Stock upon conversion of shares of our Series F Preferred Stock and the payment of the dividends thereunder in Common Stock as a result of the full ratchet anti-dilution price protection in the Certificate of Designation if the effective Common Stock purchase price in a subsequent offering is less than the then current Series F Preferred Stock conversion price, which in turn will increase the number of shares of Common Stock available for sale. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Series F Preferred Stock—The Certificate of Designation for the Series F Preferred Stock and the warrants issued concurrently contain anti-dilution provisions that may result in the reduction of the conversion price of the Series F Preferred Stock or the exercise price of such warrants in the future. These features may increase the number of shares of Common Stock being issuable upon conversion of the Series F Preferred Stock or upon the exercise of the warrants.”

In addition, the fact that our stockholders can sell substantial amounts of our Common Stock in the public market, whether or not sales have occurred or are occurring, could make it more difficult for us to raise additional financing through the sale of equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem reasonable or appropriate, or at all.

An active trading market for our Common Stock may not be sustained.

The listing of our Common Stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”) does not assure that a meaningful, consistent and liquid trading market exists. An active trading market for shares of our Common Stock may not be sustained. If an active market for our Common Stock is not sustained, it may be difficult for investors to sell their shares either without depressing the market price for the shares or at all.

We are subject to various internal control reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We can provide no assurance that we will at all times in the future be able to report that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective.

As a public company, we are required to comply with Section 404 (“Section 404”) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). In any given year, we cannot be certain as to the time of completion of our internal control evaluation, testing and remediation actions or of their impact on our operations. Upon completion of this process, we may identify control deficiencies of varying degrees of severity under applicable SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (U.S.) rules and regulations. Our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, does not expect that our internal controls and disclosure controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. In addition, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefit of controls must be relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, in our company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple errors or mistakes. Further, controls can be circumvented by individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more persons, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is also based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving our stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time, a control may be inadequate because of changes in conditions, such as growth of the company or increased transaction volume, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.