PART
I
ADIAL
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
CAUTIONARY
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This
Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange
Act”). In particular, statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including but not limited to, statements regarding
the sufficiency of our cash, our ability to finance our operations and business initiatives and obtain funding for such activities; our
future results of operations and financial position, business strategy and plan prospects, or costs and objectives of management for
future initiatives, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements relate to our future plans, objectives, expectations
and intentions and may be identified by words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expects,”
“plans,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “targets,” “projects,” “contemplates,”
“believes,” “seeks,” “goals,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential”
and “continue” or similar words. Readers are cautioned that these forward-looking statements are based on our current beliefs,
expectations and assumptions and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict, including those
identified below, under Part I, Item lA. “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Therefore, actual
results may differ materially and adversely from those expressed, projected or implied in any forward-looking statements. We undertake
no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements for any reason.
NOTE
REGARDING COMPANY REFERENCES
Throughout
this Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Adial,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our”
refer to Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Summary
Risk Factors
Our
business faces significant risks and uncertainties of which investors should be aware before making a decision to invest in our common
stock. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and
adversely affected. The following is a summary of the more significant
risks relating to the Company. A more detailed description of our risk factors set forth under
the caption “Risk Factors” in Item 1A in Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Risks
Relating to Our Company
| ● | We
have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception. |
| ● | There
is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. |
| ● | We
currently have no product revenues and may not generate revenue at any time in the near future, if at all. |
| ● | There
can be no assurance that we will be able to execute on our business strategy. |
| ● | We
will need to secure additional financing, which may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all. |
| ● | We
have identified weaknesses in our internal controls. |
| ● | We
rely on a license to use various technologies that are material to our business. |
| ● | Our
business is dependent upon the success of our lead product candidate, AD04. |
| ● | The
active ingredient of our product candidate, ondansetron, is currently available in generic form. |
| ● | Changes
in general economic conditions and geopolitical and other conditions may adversely impact us. |
| ● | For
ondansetron, under short-term use, there are currently no long-term use clinical safety data available. |
| ● | All
of our current data for our lead product candidate do not necessarily provide sufficient evidence that our products are viable as potential
pharmaceutical products. |
| ● | The
FDA and/or EMA may not accept our planned Phase 3 endpoints for final approval of AD04. |
| ● | We
will incur additional costs if the FDA or EMA requires additional clinical trials. |
| ● | AD04
is dependent on a successful development, approval, and commercialization of a genetic test. |
| ● | We
have limited experience as a company conducting clinical trials. |
| ● | Our
product candidate will require extensive clinical and other testing. |
| ● | Our
clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of AD04. |
| ● | Delays
in the enrollment of patients in our clinical trials could impact our regulatory approvals. |
| ● | Our
success will be dependent upon adoption of our products by physicians. |
| ● | Rapid
technological change and substantial competition may impair the business. |
Risks
Relating to Purnovate, Inc. (“Purnovate”)
| ● | The
combined company may not experience the anticipated strategic benefits of the acquisition and we may be unable to successfully integrate
the Purnovate businesses. |
| ● | Purnovate
has a limited operating history upon which to evaluate its ability to commercialize its products. |
| ● | The
product candidates of Purnovate are in the early stages of development. |
Risks
Relating to Our Business and Industry
| ● | We
must obtain regulatory approvals in every jurisdiction in which we intend to sell our product candidate. |
| ● | Clinical
trials are very expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement. |
| ● | AD04
and any future product candidates may cause undesirable side effects. |
| ● | We
may incur substantial liabilities and may be subject to product liability lawsuits. |
| ● | There
is uncertainty as to market acceptance of our technology and product candidates. |
| ● | We
will continue to be subject to ongoing and extensive regulatory requirements even after regulatory approval, and compliance with such
regulatory requirements cannot be assured. |
| ● | Our
employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities. |
| ● | We
have no experience selling, marketing or distributing products and have no internal capability to do so. |
| ● | We
may not be successful in establishing and maintaining strategic partnerships. |
| ● | Our
internal computer systems, or those used by our CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches and we
may face particular data protection, data security and privacy risks. |
| ● | We
have limited protection for our intellectual property. |
| ● | We
may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce the patents of our licensors. |
| ● | Obtaining
and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies and the courts. |
| ● | Our
ability to generate product revenues will be diminished if our products sell for inadequate prices or patients are unable to obtain adequate
levels of reimbursement. |
| ● | We
rely on key executive officers and scientific, regulatory and medical advisors. |
| ● | Certain
of our officers may have a conflict of interest. |
| ● | We
may acquire other businesses that could harm our operating results. |
| ● | Declining
general economic or business conditions may have a negative impact on our business. |
| ● | Health
care policy changes, including legislation reforming the U.S. health care system and other legislative initiatives, may have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. |
Risks
Related to Our Securities and Investing in Our Securities
| ● | Certain
of our shareholders have sufficient voting power to make corporate governance decisions. |
| ● | Future
sales of securities could result in additional dilution. |
| ● | Issuance
of additional securities could adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock. |
| ● | If
we issue preferred stock with superior rights than our common stock, it could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock and
delay or prevent a change in control of us. |
| ● | We
have never paid dividends and have no plans to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. |
| ● | Our
failure to meet the continued listing requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market could result in a de-listing of our common stock. |
| ● | If
we implement a reverse stock split, it may not result in intended benefits. |
|
● |
We cannot be certain if the reduced SEC reporting requirements applicable
to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors. |
| ● | As
a result of being a public company, we are subject to additional reporting and corporate governance requirements that will require additional
management time, resources and expense. |
| ● | Our
common stock has often been thinly traded, so you may be unable to sell at or near ask prices or at all. |
| ● | Our
stock price has fluctuated in the past, has recently been volatile and may be volatile in the future. |
| ● | Our
need for future financing may result in the issuance of additional securities and dilution. |
| ● | Fluctuations
in the international currency markets may significantly impact the cost of our planned trial. |
| ● | The
application of the “penny stock” rules to our common stock could limit the trading and liquidity. |
| ● | Provisions
in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company more difficult and may prevent attempts
to replace or remove our current management. |
| ● | Our
Certificate of Incorporation and our bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for
certain types of state actions. |
| ● | If
securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price
and trading volume could decline. |
| ● | The
warrants that we have issued are speculative in nature. |
| ● | There
is no established market for the warrants. |
PART
I
Item 1.
Business.
Overview
We
are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of therapeutics for the treatment or prevention of addiction
and related disorders. Our lead investigational new drug candidate, AD04, is being developed as a therapeutic agent for the treatment
of alcohol use disorder (“AUD”). AD04 was recently investigated in a Phase 3 clinical trial, designated the ONWARD trial,
for the potential treatment of AUD in subjects with certain target genotypes, which were identified using our companion diagnostic genetic
test. Based on our analysis of the subgroup data from the ONWARD trial, we are now focused on commercializing AD04 in the U.S. and Europe.
We
continue to explore opportunities to expand our portfolio in the field of addiction and related disorders such as pain reduction, both
through internal development and through acquisitions. Our vision is to create the world’s leading addiction focused pharmaceutical
company.
In January 2021, we expanded our portfolio in the field of addiction
with the acquisition of Purnovate, LLC via a merger into our wholly owned subsidiary, Purnovate, Inc., (“Purnovate”) and in
January 2023, we entered into an option agreement (the “Option Agreement”) with Adenomed LLC (“Buyer”), pursuant
to which we granted to the Buyer an exclusive option for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the effective date of the Option
Agreement (the “Option Term”) for Buyer or its designated affiliate to acquire all of the assets of Purnovate. We have been
using Purnovate’s adenosine drug discovery and development platform to invent and develop novel chemical entities as drug candidates
for large unmet medical needs.
We
have devoted the vast majority of our resources to development efforts relating to AD04, including preparation for conducting clinical
trials, providing general and administrative support for these operations and protecting our intellectual property.
Recent
Developments
In
March 2023, we announced an update to our regulatory strategy for AD04. Key highlights included:
|
● |
ONWARD™
Phase 3 clinical trial data showed that AD04 achieved a statistically significant mean reduction in heavy drinking days among the
pre-specified group of “heavy drinkers” (defined as those drinking less than 10 drinks per drinking day) |
|
● |
Additional
analysis of ONWARD data allowed refinement of genetic panel to target specific modulators of the serotonin 3 receptor A & B subunit
genotypes that outperformed others. |
|
● |
Type
C meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration confirmed for Q2 2023 to discuss clinical program in U.S. |
|
● |
Meetings
scheduled with two European country-level regulatory authorities and requested with three additional European country-level regulatory
authorities. |
|
● |
Advancing
discussions with potential U.S. and European partners. |
|
● |
Market
research subsequent to completion of the ONWARD trial suggests unit pricing for AD04 could be significantly higher than previous
assumptions |
On
February 23, 2023, we entered into a securities purchase agreement (the “2023 Purchase Agreement”) with an accredited institutional
investor providing for the issuance of 1,829,269 shares of our common stock, par value $0.001 for an aggregate purchase price of approximately
$750,000.
On January 27, 2023, we and the Buyer entered into the Option Agreement
pursuant to which we granted to the Buyer an exclusive option for the Option Term for Buyer or its designated affiliate to acquire all
of the assets of Purnovate. William Stilley, a director and Executive Vice President of the Company and Chief Executive Officer of Purnovate,
serves as the President of Buyer and is the principal stockholder of Buyer. See “Purnovate Option Agreement” for additional
details about the Option Agreement.
AD04
Clinical Development Program
ONWARD
Phase 3 Clinical Trial Results – Topline Data Analysis
Clinical
Trial Design
The
FDA indicated we could proceed with a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial design for the testing of AD04 as a treatment
for AUD in patients that are genotype positive when tested against the AD04 genetic panel using our companion diagnostic test (i.e.,
a negative genetic test result will be an exclusion criterion). The initial Phase 3 trial, designated the ONWARD trial, started in February
2020 in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe. The ONWARD trial was a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
parallel group, Phase 3 clinical study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of AD04 in patients with AUD and selected polymorphisms
in the serotonin transporter and receptor genes. Patients were genetically screened prior to enrollment in the ONWARD trial so that only
genetically positive patients were enrolled. ONWARD enrolled 302 patients (a total of 303 patients were recruited and then randomized
in the trial, however, one subject never initiated treatment and has been excluded from enrollment numbers and will not be included in
the full analysis data set or efficacy analysis for the trial). and was conducted in 25 clinical sites in six countries in Scandinavia
and Central and Eastern Europe (Sweden, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria and Croatia). Approximately one-third of the screened patients
tested genetically positive for the targeted genetics.
The
primary endpoint of the ONWARD trial was change from baseline in the monthly percent of heavy drinking days (PHDD) experienced by each
patient in months 5 and 6 combined. Key secondary endpoints include reduction in total alcohol consumed and improvement as measured by
the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, a widely accepted tool for assessment of depression. The definition of a heavy drinking day was greater
than 40 grams or 60 grams of ethyl alcohol in a day for a woman or a man, respectively. An alternative analysis was conducted for filing
in the United States using the FDA specified endpoint of reduction in percentage of patients with heavy drinking during the efficacy
observation period as compared to placebo (FDA Feb. 2015 Draft Guidance Alcoholism: Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry
) and which the FDA has indicated will be acceptable. Under this guidance, the FDA appears to now define a heavy drinking as more
than three drinks in a day for a woman and more than four drinks in a day for a man, which is a reduction from the prior definition.
We intend to seek clarification from the FDA on the definition of a heavy drinking day prior to our submission to them and do not believe
a minor change to the definition of a heavy drinking day will be material to our plans.
Topline
Data Analysis
On
July 20, 2022, we announced the following results from the ONWARD™ Phase 3 trial. Although the trial missed the primary endpoint,
it did show statistical significance in a pre-defined patient group and we believe we can meet the FDA and EMA defined primary endpoints
in a subsequent trial that incorporates outcomes from the ONWARD trial.
|
● |
AD04
patients, compared with placebo patients, achieved a statistically significant reduction from baseline at month six in heavy drinking
days for the pre-specified patient group of heavy drinkers (avg. <10 drinks per drinking day at baseline; p=0.03), which accounted
for approximately two-thirds of the trial population. A similar trend was seen in the combined month five and six analysis in the reduction
from baseline (p =0.07). Notably, in the last month of the trial, AD04 heavy drinking patients had a mean reduction of approximately
79% in heavy drinking compared with baseline. |
|
● |
AD04
patients, compared with placebo patients, showed a trend in the reduction from baseline at month six in heavy drinking days for the
combined trial population of heavy and very heavy drinkers (p=NS), which was influenced by the high placebo response among very
heavy drinkers (avg. ≥10 drinks per drinking day at baseline), due to both the AD04 and placebo groups reducing mean heavy
drinking days by more than 50%. A similar, non-statistically significant trend was seen in the combined months five and six analysis
in the reduction from baseline, which was the pre-specified primary efficacy analysis. |
|
● |
Compared
with placebo patients, AD04 patients in the heavy drinking group had an overall significant difference in the severity of their AUD
diagnosis (p=0.04) under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). For the group of those
who no longer meet AUD criteria (<2 symptoms), the comparisons
were
27.4% vs. 14.9% (i.e., an 84% decrease), of AD04 and placebo patients, respectively. These data underscore the clinical relevance of
the findings that heavy drinking AUD patients that receive AD04 appear more likely to recover from the disease by the end of the
treatment regimen. |
|
● |
Based
on the levels of alcohol consumption reported in a meta-analysis of 83 prospective studies in primary care screening for those with
AUD (Wood, et. al., Lancet 2018), the Company estimates that a majority of potential patients for AD04 would fall under the
pre-specified group of heavy drinkers. This finding underscores the potential broad applicability of the results to general practice
and that they could be the basis for potential regulatory approvals. |
Additionally,
and consistent with the Phase 2b trial, AD04 had a safety and tolerability profile that was similar to placebo:
|
● |
Serious
Adverse Events (SAEs) |
| * | No
SAEs were determined to be related to AD04 treatment. |
| * | More
SAEs were reported in the placebo group compared with the AD04 group (7 on placebo vs. 3 on AD04). |
| * | There
were two cardiac events in placebo group and none in the AD04 group. |
| ● | Side
effects/Adverse Events (AEs) |
| * | The
AE profiles between AD04 and placebo were similar. |
| * | AEs
reported with a frequency of 5% or more of patients in either group were: headache (11% on placebo, 12% on AD04), insomnia (3% on placebo,
7% on AD04), blood magnesium decreased (5% on placebo, 6% on AD04), and fatigue (3% on placebo, 6% on AD04). All of the above AE’s
were reported as mild to moderate. |
| * | Importantly,
in the overall category of cardiac disorders, patients on placebo showed a greater number of adverse events relative to AD04 (7% on placebo,
4% on AD04), in addition to greater number of cardiac SAEs in the placebo group as reported above. |
Future
Planned Regulatory Actions
We
have meetings planned or scheduled to review the data from the ONWARD trial with FDA and five European countries. From these meetings
we expect to obtain confirmation of a clear clinical development plan for the U.S. and Europe including whether any additional clinical
trials would be required. Our current assumption is that we will be required to conduct a second Phase 3 clinical trial. If we are required
to conduct a second Phase 3 clinical trial it may be conducted in a broader geography that may include the United States. The trial design
is expected to include the two target genotypes (approximately 20% of AUD patients) that resulted in a favorable response to AD04 in
the genotypic subgroup analyses and only include the “heavy drinker” population. We believe the data indicate that AD04 safely
reduces drinking in these patients and plan to confirm these findings in the next clinical trial. Based on the narrower targeted genotypes
and the more favorable response among this group, we currently estimate that size of a second Phase 3 trial to be smaller than the ONWARD
trial. Depending on the results of the meeting with FDA, it is also possible that the FDA may require a third Phase 3 trial. If a third
Phase 3 trial is required, we would expect to conduct it in parallel with the second Phase 3 trial with a goal of not delaying approval
of AD04.
We
have had a joint meeting with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Review (“CDER”) and the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (“CDRH”), the two divisions of the FDA responsible for drug approvals and device authorizations, respectively. At
the meeting the divisions agreed that clinical validation of our companion diagnostic test for AD04 will be evaluated by CDER and the
technical validation of our companion diagnostic will be evaluated by CDRH. We expect to need approval of a premarket approval application
(“PMA”) or a premarket notification submission (“510(k)”) from CDRH for the companion diagnostics to be used
with the drug product. We already developed the methods for the companion diagnostic as a blood test and established the test with a
third-party vendor capable of supporting a Phase 3 clinical trial, and have built validation and possible approval of the companion diagnostic
into the Phase 3 program, including that we plan to store blood samples for all patients in the event additional genetic testing is required
by regulatory authorities.
We
plan to test AD04 in adolescent patients (ages 12-17) as part of our next Phase 3 trial. If successful, we intend to request labeling
for treating adolescent patients.
In
parallel with the second Phase 3 trial, we expect to conduct any standard Phase 1 studies required by the regulatory agencies. Studies
that have been discussed with the FDA as potentially being required might assess food effects, potentiation of the central nervous system
effects of alcohol, and pharmacodynamic impact of certain cytochrome P450 enzyme variants. We also expect to conduct a 12-month open-label
Phase 1 safety study in at least 100 subjects to evaluate the 12-month safety of AD04.
Phase
2b Investigator Initiated Clinical Trial of AD04 for Alcohol Use Disorder Conducted by the University of Virginia
In
various studies, it has been shown that alcohol dependent individuals with the LL genotype of the 5’-HTT and the TT genotype in
the 3’-UTR LL and TT genotype have lower B-CIT neuronal binding to 5-HTT. It is hypothesized that individuals with the LL or TT
genotype, 5-HTT gene expression is suppressed by increased alcohol consumption, and therefore, ondansetron, which causes 5-HTT gene expression
would have the greatest effect upon individuals that possess both the LL genotype of the 5’-HTT and the TT genotype in the 3’-UTR.
A subsequent Phase 2b study (N = 283), conducted by the University of Virginia for which we have acquired rights to the data, showed
that a prospectively identified subgroup of alcohol-dependent individuals with these specific polymorphisms of the serotonin transporter
protein responded therapeutically to ondansetron administration (Johnson, BA et al., 2011). Further analysis of this same data set against
18 additional polymorphisms located on the genes for the A and B subunits of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor revealed polymorphisms that
were also associated with a therapeutic response to ondansetron. Collectively, the genotypes from the two aforementioned analyses comprise
the genotypes selected for testing in Phase 3 trials for AD04.
Phase
2B Trial Design
The
Phase 2b clinical trial conducted by the University of Virginia was a 283-patient, 12-week, randomized, two-center, parallel-group, placebo-controlled
study. Following a 1 week placebo run in (single-blind), alcohol-dependent subjects were randomized to receive either 4 µg/kg ondansetron
or placebo, orally, twice daily (double-blind) for 11 additional weeks. In addition to study treatment, all subjects received weekly,
standardized, manual-driven, cognitive behavioral therapy.
Eligible
subjects were classified to one of twelve groups described by the 2×2 x 3 factorial combinations and randomized to placebo or ondansetron
(4 mcg/kg twice daily [b.i.d.]) using a computed blocks randomization procedure that balances the twelve treatment groups on drinks/day
≤ 7.99 vs ≥8.00), age of onset (early vs. late), and genotype (LL, SS, SL).
Genotyping
and analysis of the study subjects for the SNP rs1042173 (TT, TG or GG) in the 3´-UTR of the 5-SLC6A4 gene that codes for the serotonin
transporter was performed following randomization but prior to database lock. Genotyping and analysis of the study subjects for SNPs
located on genes that govern expression of the 5-HT3A and 5-HT3B subunits of the 5-HT3 receptor was performed after database lock.
During
treatment, subjects were evaluated weekly at the study center for efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Alcohol consumption was collected
via the self-reported Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) method (Sobell and Sobell, Psychosocial & Biochem. Meth., 1992).
Efficacy
measures were based on self-reported drinking outcomes with drinks per drinking day (“DDD”), with a standard drink equal
to 14 grams of alcohol, and the percentage of days abstinent (“PDA”) being the pre-specified efficacy end points. Withdrawal
symptoms, social functioning, and motivation to use alcohol were assessed using standard questionnaires and scales. Subject safety was
monitored through periodic electrocardiograms (EKGs), physical exams, safety laboratories and collection of adverse events, concomitant
medications, and vital signs. Additionally, a post hoc analysis was conducted using the endpoint of percentage of heavy drinking
days (“PDHD”), which is the number of days of heavy drinking days in a month as a percentage of days in the month, because
it is widely recognized as a clinically meaningful endpoint and is expected to be an end point in a pivotal/Phase 3 trials. The PDHD
end point requires that each day be determined to be a heavy drinking day (e.g., a day in which a female drinks 4 or more drinks or a
male drinks 5 or more drinks) or not, making each day binary and requiring an increased sample size to ensure statistical power. Therefore,
the goal of the PDHD analysis was to determine if there was a trend toward and effect with PDHD without necessary achieving statistical
significance.
The
study objectives were to evaluate the safety of AD04 and to test the hypotheses that: (i) ondansetron will have a greater effect of reducing
the severity of alcohol drinking and of increasing the percentage of days abstinent among alcohol-dependent subjects with the LL genotype
as compared with S carriers (SS or SL) of the 5´-HTTLPR; and (ii) ondansetron’s therapeutic effect will be greatest among
alcohol-dependent subjects who possess both the LL genotype of the 5´-HTTLPR and the TT genotype of rs1042173 in the 3´-UTR
of the 5´-HTT. After completion of the study, a planned additional analysis of the correlation between genotype and drinking outcomes
was conducted considering 18 SNPs located on the 5-HT3A and 5-HT3B subunit genes that were selected based on their minor allele frequency
(≥ 0.05) in different ethnic populations, to obtain uniform physical coverage of the two genes, and on results from previous genetic
association studies. This latter analysis identified three SNPs as having an apparent beneficial effect.
The
primary analytic procedure used mixed-effects linear regression models and a sensitivity analysis using repeated measures models.
Additionally,
based on the expectation that subjects with the LL and LL/TT variants of the SLC6A4 gene would respond to ondansetron treatment while
others do not, the possibility that SNPs in the 5-HT3A and 5-HT3B subunits of the 5-HT3AB receptor complex may also influence the response
to ondansetron was planned as a post hoc analysis. The possible role of SNPs on the HTR3A and HTR3B genes in the response to ondansetron
is logical since the 5-HT3A receptor subunit is the primary target for ondansetron’s actions, and the 5-HT3B receptor subunit may
be associated with the availability and externalization of the 5-HT3AB receptor complex. Thus, alterations in post-synaptic receptors,
such as the 5-HT3AB receptor complex, could have a large impact on signal transduction along post-synaptic neurons. For these analyses,
a total of 18 SNPs on the genes for the 5-HT3A and 5-HT3B subunits were examined. SNPs were selected based on their minor allele frequency
(≥ 0.05) in different ethnic populations, to obtain uniform physical coverage of the two genes, and on results from previous genetic
association studies.
Summary
Results — Safety:
Overall,
95% of the subjects in the ondansetron group and 96% in the placebo group reported a treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) during the study. TEAEs
occurred most frequently in the SOCs of gastrointestinal disorders (ondansetron 65%, placebo 61%), metabolism and nutritional disorders
(38%, 43%), and nervous system disorders (60%, 58%). The incidence of TEAEs by preferred term was similar between the ondansetron and
placebo groups. TEAEs that occurred at a frequency ≥ 5% in the ondansetron group compared with the placebo group included constipation
(32%, 21%), fatigue (39%, 25%), and dizziness (21%, 12%). There was one death during the study; Subject #218 committed suicide on Study
Day 40. The event was considered not related to study drug. Treatment-emergent SAEs were reported in 3 (2.1%) ondansetron-treated subjects
and 6 (3.8%) placebo-treated subjects. No SAE was considered related to study drug, and detoxification was the only SAE that was reported
for more than 1 subject (2 ondansetron subjects). No clinically meaningful changes in clinical laboratory results, vital sign measurements,
ECGs or physical examinations were observed for subjects during the course of the study.
The results
are summarized in the below graphs.
Phase
2b Clinical Trial Results — Post Hoc Analysis of Effect on Percentage of Heavy Drinking Days (defined as 4/5 or more drinks
in a day for a woman/man, respectively)
A
12-week, randomized, two-center, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm (four cell) clinical trial of oral ondansetron
(n=283)
Summary
Results Phase 2b Clinical Trial — Primary Analysis of Efficacy of LL and LL/TT
Analysis
of the LL genotype of the 5´-HTTLPR as compared to the non-LL genotypes showed a significant reduction in DDD and PDA (Johnson,
et.al, Am. Jrnl. Psych., 2011). However, the demonstrated effect of the LL/TT vs. other patients was more pronounced, and carriers of
LL/TT genotype who received ondansetron showed a greater reduction in drinking compared to LL/TT on placebo. Carriers of the LL/TT genotype
who received ondansetron showed a greater reduction in DDD compared to: 1) LL/TT carriers who received placebo (difference of 2.05 drinks/drinking
day; 95% CI, -3.72 to -0.39; p=0.0158), 2) LL/Gx carriers who received ondansetron (difference of 2.29 drinks/drinking day; 95% CI, -3.99
to -0.72; p=0.0048), and 3) all other genotypes who received ondansetron treatment (difference of 2.58 drinks/drinking day; 95% CI, -3.94
to 1.22; p<0.0001); and a greater PDA compared with: 1) the LL/TT genotype group treated with placebo (mean difference=12.38%; 95%
CI= -1.57 to 26.33; p= 0.0819), 2) LL/Gx carriers treated with ondansetron (mean difference=15.14%; 95% CI= 1.41 to 28.87;
p= 0.0307), and 3) all other genotypes treated with ondansetron (difference= 16.82%; 95% CI= 6.15 to 27.48; p=0.0020). The post hoc
analysis of the PDHD endpoint show that ondansetron treatment of subjects with the LL/TT genotype was associated with a larger (but
not statistically significant) reduction in PDHD compared to changes in PDHD in subjects with all other genotypes who received treatment
with ondansetron (mean difference= -8.49%; 95% CI= 20.34 to 3.367; p= 0.1601). Similar trends (i.e., augmented reductions in PDHD) were
observed for the LL/TT group treated with ondansetron versus the LL/Gx genotype group treated with ondansetron and versus the LL/TT group
treated with placebo (mean difference=-2.54% 95% CI= 17.74 to 12.66, p=0.7431; and mean difference= 5.72% 95% CI= 21.20 to 9.75, p=0.4684;
respectively).
Identification
of Modulators of the 5-HT3 Receptor and Selection of the Phase 3 Genetic Panel for AD04
As
stated above, a total of 18 SNPs on the genes for the 5-HT3A and 5-HT3B subunits were examined with SNPs selected based on frequency
and on results from previous genetic association studies.
These
analyses identified 3 SNPs (three in the gene for the 5-HT3A subunit and one in the gene for the 5-HT3B subunit) that were significantly
associated with a positive response to ondansetron based on reductions in DDD and PDA. Thus, the genotype profile targeted for Phase
3 development is defined as those subjects who carry the LL/TT genotype and/or one of three 5-HT3 SNPs of interest (i.e., rs1150226-AG
and rs1176713-GG in the gene that encodes the 5-HT3A receptor subunit and rs17614942-AC in the gene that encodes the 5-HT3B receptor
subunit). The hypothesis that subjects who are carriers of the genotype panel targeted for study in Phase 3 (“P3-genotype”,
with such patients “genotype positive” or “marker positive”) preferentially respond to treatment with ondansetron
compared to subjects who do not carry any of the genotypes targeted for study in Phase 3 were assessed using the drinking endpoints of
DDD, PDA, and PDHD.
Carriers
of the P3-genotype who received ondansetron showed a greater reduction in DDD compared to P3-genotype carriers who received placebo (difference
of 1.71 drinks/drinking day; 95% CI= -2.88 to -0.54; p=0.0042), and compared to subjects treated with ondansetron who were not carriers
of the P3-genotype (All Other-OND; difference of 2.05 drinks/drinking day; 95% CI= -3.11 to -1.00, p=0.0001). In contrast, no difference
was observed between non-P3-genotypes who received ondansetron (All Other-OND) versus non-P3-genotypes who received placebo (All Other-Placebo;
difference of 0.40 drinks/drinking day; 95% CI= -0.43 to 1.23; p=0.3445). The mean baseline DDD for all subjects was 9.5 drinks/drinking
day. Carriers of the P3-genotype who received ondansetron (P3-OND) had a greater increase in PDA compared to P3-genotype carriers who
received placebo (P3-Placebo; difference of 11.56%; 95% CI= 0.80 to 22.31; p=0.0352) and compared to non-P3-genotype carriers who received
ondansetron (All Other-OND; difference of 11.52%; 95% CI= 1.76 to 21.28; p=0.0208). In contrast, no differences were observed for the
PDA endpoint between non-P3-genotypes treated with ondansetron versus non P3-genotypes treated with placebo (All Other-OND versus All
Other-Placebo; difference of -0.96%; 95% CI= -8.61 to 6.69; p=0.8055). The mean baseline PDA for all subjects was 17%.
The
results are summarized in the below graphs.
Phase
2b Clinical Trial Results — Analysis of Primary and Secondary Efficacy Endpoints for Target Genotypes
A
12-week, randomized, two-center, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm (four cell) clinical trial of oral ondansetron
(n=283)
As
stated, above, the study was not powered to achieve statistical significance against the binary-by-day end point of PDHD, however, carriers
of the P3-genotype who received ondansetron (P3-OND) showed a significantly greater reduction in PDHD compared to P3-genotype carriers
who received placebo (P3-Placebo; difference of -11.08%; 95% CI= -21.90 to 0.27; p=0.0445), and compared to non-P3-genotype carriers
who received ondansetron (All Other-OND; difference of -10.35%; 95% CI= -20.11 to -0.58; p=0.0378). In contrast, no difference was observed
between non-P3-genotypes who received ondansetron (All Other-OND) versus non-P3-genotypes who received Placebo (All Other-Placebo; difference
of 2.88%; 95% CI= -4.80 to 10.56; p=0.4625). The mean baseline PDHD for all subjects was 70%.
Definition
of Heavy Drinking Day
As
stated above, for the PDHD post hoc analysis of the Phase 2b clinical trial data, a heavy drinking day was defined as a day when
a female drank 4 or more drinks in a day, with a drink being defined as containing 14 grams of alcohol, or when a man drank 5 or more
drinks in a day, which was the definition the FDA indicated to us was required. It is also currently the definition of “high-risk
drinking” in Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020 (U.S. Departments of HHS and Agriculture), the NIAAA’s definition
of “binge drinking”, and has historically been the definition for a heavy drinking day (Neal, D., & Carey, K., 2007).
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) defines heavy drinking “as drinking 5 or more alcoholic
drinks on the same occasion.” Subsequent to our analysis of the Phase 2b data and agreement with the FDA on the definition of a
heavy drinking day as 4/5 or more drinks in a day for females/males, the FDA published a draft guidance, in which it states, “Those
drinking 4 plus/5 plus [drinks for females and males, respectively] even on occasion have significantly higher risks (10 to 20 percent)
of meeting criteria for AUD.” The FDA’s draft guidance then states that the NIAAA defines a heavy drinking day as more than
3 drinks in a day for a woman and more than 4 drinks in a day for a man, which is currently only part of the NIAAA’s definition
for “low-risk drinking”, and which is very similar but not necessarily identical to what the FDA indicated to us was required
and the criteria we used when generating our study report on the Phase 2b. So, it is unclear which definition of a heavy drinking day
the FDA will accept at this time. However, under this different definition of a heavy drinking day as more than 3/4 for females/males,
the Phase 2b trial data support the effect of AD04 on reducing heavy drinking and showed a greater reduction in PDHD compared to P3-genotype
carriers who received placebo (P3-Placebo; difference of -10.24%; 95% CI= -21.18 to 0.70; p=0.0665), and compared to non-P3-genotype
carriers who received ondansetron (All Other-OND; difference of -11.65%; 95% CI= -21.54 to -1.77; p=0.0209). In contrast, no difference
was observed between non-P3-genotypes who received ondansetron (All Other-OND) versus non-P3-genotypes who received Placebo (All Other-Placebo;
difference of 4.09%; 95% CI= -3.70 to 11.88; p=0.3033). We do not expect a small change to the definition of a heavy drinking day to
dramatically change our plans or probability of success. We intend to discuss the definition of a heavy drinking day with the FDA and
EMA prior to our relevant submissions.
Alcohol
Use Disorder and AD04
AUD
is characterized by an urge to consume alcohol and an inability to control the levels of consumption. We have completed the clinical
phase of the landmark ONWARD™ pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial using AD04 for the potential treatment of AUD in subjects
with certain target genotypes. As of this filing, all 302 patients included in the trial had completed dosing and follow up visits and
the final monitoring and close-out activities are completed (a total of 303 patients were recruited and then randomized in the trial,
however, one subject never initiated treatment and has been excluded from enrollment numbers and will not be included in the full analysis
data set or efficacy analysis for the trial). ONWARD trial data was unblinded and analyzed in the second quarter of 2022 and topline
data analysis was reported in July 2022. We believe our approach is unique in that it targets the serotonin system and individualizes
the treatment of AUD, through the use of genetic screening (i.e., a companion diagnostic genetic biomarker). We have created an investigational
companion diagnostic biomarker test for the genetic screening of patients with certain biomarkers that, as reported in the American
Journal of Psychiatry (Johnson, et. al. 2011 & 2013), we believe will benefit from treatment with AD04. Our strategy is to integrate
the pre-treatment genetic screening into AD04’s label to create a patient-specific treatment in one integrated therapeutic offering.
Our goal is to develop a genetically targeted, effective and safe product candidate to treat AUD by reducing or eliminating the patients’
consumption of alcohol.
We
have a worldwide, exclusive license from the University of Virginia Patent Foundation (d/b/a the Licensing & Venture Group) (“UVA
LVG”), which is the licensing arm of the University of Virginia, to commercialize our investigational drug candidate, AD04, subject
to Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval of the product, based upon three separate patent application families, with
patents issued in over 40 jurisdictions, including three issued patents in the U.S. Our investigational agent has been used in several
investigator-sponsored trials and we possess or have rights to use toxicology, pharmacokinetic and other preclinical and clinical data
that support our landmark ONWARD pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial. Our licensed therapeutic agent was the product candidate used in the
ONWARD pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of 302 patients as well as a University of Virginia investigator sponsored Phase 2b clinical trial
of 283 patients.
The
active pharmaceutical agent in AD04, our lead investigational new drug product, is ondansetron, which is also the active ingredient in
Zofran®, which was granted FDA approval in 1991 for nausea and vomiting post-operatively and after chemotherapy or radiation
treatment and is now commercially available in generic form. In studies of Zofran®, conducted as part of its FDA review
process, ondansetron was given acutely at dosages up to almost 100 times the dosage expected to be formulated in AD04 with the highest
doses of Zofran® given intravenously (“i.v.”), which results in approximately 160% of the exposure level as
oral dosing. Even at high doses given i.v. the studies found that ondansetron is well-tolerated and results in few adverse side effects
at the currently marketed doses, which reach more than 80 times the AD04 dose and are given i.v. The formulation dosage of ondansetron
used in our drug candidate (and expected to be used by us in our Phase 3 clinical trials) has the potential advantage that it contains
a much lower concentration of ondansetron than the generic formulation/dosage that has been used in prior clinical trials, is dosed orally,
and is available with use of a companion diagnostic genetic biomarker. Our development plan for AD04 is designed to demonstrate both
the efficacy of AD04 in the genetically targeted population and the safety of ondansetron when administered chronically at the AD04 dosage.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive clinical study has been performed to date that has evaluated the safety profile
of ondansetron at any dosage for long-term use as anticipated in our ongoing and planned clinical trials.
According
to the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (the “NIAAA”) and the Journal of the American Medical Association
(“JAMA”), in the United States alone, approximately 35 million people each year have AUD (such number is based upon the 2012
data provided in Grant et. al. the JAMA 2015 publication and has been adjusted to reflect a compound annual growth rate of 1.13%, which
is the growth rate reported by U.S. Census Bureau for the general adult population from 2012-2017), resulting in significant health,
social and financial costs with excessive alcohol use being the third leading cause of preventable death and is responsible for 31% of
driving fatalities in the United States (NIAAA Alcohol Facts & Statistics). AUD contributes to over 200 different diseases and 10%
of children live with a person that has an alcohol problem. According to the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, 5-6% of new cancers
and cancer deaths globally are directly attributable to alcohol. And, The Lancet published that alcohol is the leading cause of
death in people ages 15-49 globally. The Centers for Disease Control (the “CDC”) has reported that AUD costs the U.S. economy
about $250 billion annually, with heavy drinking accounting for greater than 75% of the social and health related costs. Despite this,
according to the article in the JAMA 2015 publication, only 7.7% of patients (i.e., approximately 2.7 million people) with AUD are estimated
to have been treated in any way and only 3.6% by a physician (i.e., approximately 1.3 million people). In addition, according to the
JAMA 2017 publication, the problem in the United States appears to be growing with almost a 50% increase in AUD prevalence between 2002
and 2013.
AUD
is characterized by an urge to consume alcohol and an inability to control the levels of consumption. Until the publication of the fifth
revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013 (the “DSM-5”), AUD was broken into “alcohol
dependence” and “alcohol abuse”. More broadly, overdrinking due to the inability to moderate drinking is called alcohol
addiction and is often called “alcoholism”, sometimes pejoratively.
Since
ondansetron is already manufactured for generic sale, the active ingredient for AD04 is readily available from several manufacturers,
and we have contracted with a U.S. manufacturer to acquire ondansetron at a cost expected to be under $0.01 per dose. Clinical trial
material (“CTM”) has already been manufactured for the ONWARD Phase 3 trial. The CTM has demonstrated good stability after
four years with the stability studies to date.
We
have also developed the manufacturing process at a third-party vendor to produce tablets at what we expect will serve for commercial
scale production (i.e., greater than 1 million tablets per batch), also at a cost expected to be less than $0.01 per dose. A proprietary
packaging process has been developed, which appears to extend the stability of the drug product. Packaging costs are expected to be less
than $0.05 per dose. We do not have a written commitment for supply of either the tablets or the packaging and believe that alternative
suppliers are available to whom we can transfer the processes that have been developed.
Methods
for the companion diagnostic genetic test have been developed as a blood test, and we established the test with a third-party vendor
capable of supporting our clinical program. Additionally, we have built validation and possible approval of the companion diagnostic
into the Phase 3 program, including that we plan to store blood samples for all patients in the event additional genetic testing is required
by regulatory authorities.
Disease
Targets and Markets for AD04
Limitations
of Current AUD Therapies
Today
the most common treatments for AUD are directed at achieving abstinence and typical treatments include psychological and social interventions.
Most therapies actually require abstinence prior to initiating therapy. Abstinence requires dramatic lifestyle changes often with serious
work and social consequences. Frequently, patients cannot attend family and social events in order to ensure compliance with abstinence,
and patients often must suffer from the stigma of having been labelled an alcoholic. Significant side effects of current pharmacologic
therapies include mental side effects such as psychiatric disorders and depressive symptoms and physical side effects such as nausea,
dizziness, vomiting, abdominal pain, and hepatoxicity. In fact, according to peer reviewed studies referenced in The Sober Truth:
Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry, L. Dodes and Z. Dodes, 2014 by Dr. Lance Dodes, the former
Director of the substance abuse treatment unit of Harvard’s McLean Hospital, 90% or more of patients that use current therapy solutions,
such as Alcoholics Anonymous, do not achieve long-term abstinence.
There
are four drugs approved by the FDA and marketed in the United States for the treatment of alcohol addiction, Antabuse®
(disulfram) Vivitrol® (naltrexone), Revia® (naltrexone) and Campral® (acomprosate) and one
drug, Selincro® (nalmefene) is marketed outside of the United States. All of the approved drugs, other than Selincro®,
require abstinence prior to commencing treatment with the drug, and all five drugs are known to have significant side effects.
Antabuse®
was approved for the treatment of alcohol dependence more than 50 years ago, making it the oldest such drug on the market. It works
by interfering with the body’s ability to process alcohol. Its method of action and purpose is to cause patients that drink alcohol
while taking Antabuse® to experience numerous and extremely unpleasant adverse effects, including, among others, flushing,
nausea, and palpitations, with the goal that patients will continue the medication but refrain from drinking in order to avoid these
effects.
Naltrexone,
which can be taken as a once-daily pill (Revia®) or in an approved once-monthly injectable form (Vivitrol®
) that requires a doctor to administer is often associated with gastrointestinal complaints and has been reported to cause liver damage
when given at certain high doses. As a result, it carries an FDA boxed warning, a special emphasized warning, for this side effect.
Campral®,
taken by mouth three times daily, acts on chemical messenger systems in the brain.
Selincro®
has not been approved for sale in the United States.
Our
Proposed Solution
Our
goal with AD04 is to develop an effective and safe product to treat AUD that does not require abstinence as part of the treatment and
does not have the negative side effects of the current drugs on the market. Our product candidate, AD04, is designed for genotype positive
patients who desire to control their drinking but cannot or do not want to completely abstain from drinking. By removing the difficulties
associated with abstinence and the side effects associated with the other current products on the market, we believe that we may be able
to remove barriers to patient adoption that inhibit adoption of current therapies and can attract a greater portion of the many millions
of patients with AUD that remain untreated. Unlike other therapies, our investigational product, AD04, uses a novel mode of action for
treating AUD that involves genetic screening with a companion diagnostic genetic test prior to treatment and is designed to reduce cravings
for alcohol to effectively curb alcohol intake, without the requirement of abstinence prior to or during treatment. Our product candidate
is intended to be easy to use since it is administered orally, currently on a twice daily basis and with a once-a-day tablet planned
as part of the product’s life cycle management. To date, clinical testing of AD04 has shown it to have a positive safety and tolerability
profile with side effects similar to placebo.
The
companion diagnostic genetic test to be used to identify patients that are most likely to benefit from treatment with AD04 may potentially
enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome for those undergoing treatment. Additionally, it may provide doctors with the opportunity
to have a non-threatening conversation about alcohol with their patients and may provide the patient an acceptable path to help them
determine if they might be a candidate for help with their alcohol use. If the test results are positive, they would have a science-based
rationale for their treatment, which reduces some of the stigma patients might otherwise endure, and potentially allows them to be treated
in the confidence of their doctor with an oral tablet.
Strengths
and Competitive Advantages
Large
Market Opportunity for an Effective Solution
Based on our analysis of the subgroup data from the ONWARD trial, we
are now focused on commercializing AD04 in the U.S. and Europe. In the United States alone, approximately 35 million people each year
have AUD. Based on data from the ONWARD trial and Phase 2b trial of AD04 and our analysis of publicly available genetic databases, we
preliminarily estimate that about one in three patients with AUD in the U.S. and Europe will have the genetic markers to indicate possible
treatment with AD04. Our initial focus, based on the subgroup analysis will include genotypes that we estimate represent about 20% of
AUD patients in the U.S, and Europe. At this time, we are not aware of any oral pharmaceutical treatment approved in the U.S. that addresses
the needs of patients who desire to control their drinking but cannot or do not want to abstain from drinking. The current abstinence-based
treatments have limitations. The limited side effects expected for our investigational new drug, based on clinical data so far, are also
believed to be an important factor in the expected rapid uptake of AD04 in the market. Our approach, if approved by FDA, may allow for
social drinking to continue and is aimed at reducing the dangerous, heavy drinking. This would allow patients to live the life they want
without the stigma associated with complete abstention and currently endured by those seeking help for their excessive drinking. Assuming
that 20% of AUD patients are genotype positive for treatment with AD04 and a $600 price for a one-month supply of the drug (assumed pricing
based on Adial commissioned health care payer research for Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC)), the total potential market for AD04 would
be in excess of $40 billion in the United States alone.
Beyond
the United States, alcohol consumption worldwide is a serious health issue. The 2018 Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health published
by the World Health Organization (the “WHO”) states that 5.3% of all deaths (about 3.0 million per year) and 5.1% of disease
worldwide are attributable to alcohol consumption. Europe consumes over 25% of the total alcohol consumed worldwide despite only having
14.7% of the world’s population. The WHO estimates that about 55 million people in Europe have AUD and, within Europe, Eastern
Europe has a particularly acute problem with Russia estimated to have about 21 million people with AUD. The WHO further estimates that
17.4% of adult Russians and 31% of adult Russian males have AUD, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data indicates
that 30% of all deaths in Russia are alcohol related as reported by Quartz Media.
Companion
Genetic Bio-Marker Aimed at Identifying Patients Most Likely to Respond To Treatment, Potentially Results in Increased Use of AD04
We believe our drug is unique in that it is designed to reduce heavy
drinking in individuals with certain genotypes. We are pursuing a strategy that aims to integrate pre-treatment screening with the companion
diagnostic genetic test into the drug label, essentially combining the test and treatment into one integrated therapeutic. This companion
diagnostic testing approach may be a useful genetic screening tool to predict those most likely to respond to the drug and to have minimal
side effects. Based on the clinical experience to date and publicly available databases, we believe the genetic prevalence of genotype
positive people is about 33% of the population in the United States and Europe. Our experience in the ONWARD Phase 3 clinical trial indicates
the prevalence in this area to also be about 33%. Our initial focus, based on the subgroup analysis will include those genotypes that
we estimate represent about 20% of AUD patients in the U.S, and Europe. We previously believed the prevalence in Scandinavia and in certain
areas of Central and Eastern Europe may be greater than 50%, but our experience in the ONWARD Phase 3 clinical trial indicates the prevalence
in this area to also be about 33%. The FDA has agreed that the Phase 3 trials of AD04 can proceed only enrolling patients that are genotype
positive, which greatly reduces the cost, time and risk relative to a trial that also enrolled patients that are genotype negative for
treatment with AD04. The FDA has indicated that any approval based on a trial only in genotype positive patients would result in labeling
restricted to treating genotype positive patients.
We are conducting our current landmark ONWARD pivotal Phase 3 clinical
trial in counties in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe, including Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Croatia. We
expect to use the ONWARD trial as a pivotal Phase 3 trial to serve as a basis for approval in both the United States and Europe. We have
requested Scientific Advice meetings with five countries in Europe, including Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom, Finland and France.
From these meetings, we expect to gain a clear understanding from each regulatory authority regarding the most expeditious path to approval
in each European country – including insight into whether additional trials would be required. The meetings with Sweden and Germany
are scheduled for March and April 2023 respectively. Scheduling for the United Kingdom, Finland and France are pending confirmation.
In
the U.S. we requested and were granted a Type C meeting with FDA, which will be held in Q2 2023. The Type C meeting is expected to provide
us with confirmation of a clear clinical development plan for the U.S.
We
believe that the companion diagnostic genetic test enables physicians to more easily have an initial conversation with their patients
about alcohol use and, for the patient, provides a less threatening and obtrusive first step toward treatment because the conversation
will include the topic of genetic testing and not be solely about behavior. Patients that then test positive against the AD04 genetic
panel would be expected to be more likely to then receive a prescription for AD04 (based on an external quantitative market study of
156 primary care physicians and psychiatrists that was conducted by Ipsos-Insight LLC, who we commissioned, and that concluded a majority
of genetically targeted patients currently receiving pharmacologic treatment would be switched to a drug with the characteristics expected
for AD04).
Prior
Work of Universities and our Ability to Leverage Relationships Creates Cost Efficiencies
We
have a worldwide, exclusive license to intellectual property developed at the University of Virginia by our Chief Medical Officer, Dr.
Bankole A. Johnson, who was Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia (and
prior to that the Chief of the Division of Alcohol and Drug Addiction at the University of Texas) and was Chair, Department of Psychiatry
and Director of the Brain Science Research Consortium Unit at the University of Maryland. Dr. Johnson has spent almost three decades
researching the underlying subject matter. Significant portions of the supporting research were also funded under grants from the National
Institute of Health to the University of Virginia and the University of Texas. On July 5, 2019, we entered into a Master Services Agreement
and statement of work with Psychological Education Publishing Company (“PEPCO”), a company owned by Dr. Johnson, that is
engaged in the business of administering a behavioral therapy program, Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment, for our Phase
3 clinical trial using AD04, for the treatment of AUD.
By
leveraging the prior work of universities and their researchers, including their pre-clinical studies and accumulated data, we believe
we have developed a significant drug development opportunity. Because of the licensing approach taken to secure intellectual property,
including, without limitation, patents and rights to clinical trial data, and our collaborations with the University of Virginia, we,
historically have not had to incur the significant costs that would normally be required to develop therapeutic treatments up to the
point of commencing a Phase 3 clinical trial.
Known,
Well-Tested Agent Has Shown Favorable Results in Non-AUD Uses
Ondansetron,
the principal active pharmaceutical agent in AD04 has been approved by the FDA to treat nausea and vomiting but is administered at much
higher doses than we intend to use and has shown limited side effects even at the higher dosages currently on the market. However, it
has not been approved in our anticipated dosage or for our anticipated uses and treatment period. Consequently, we expect to submit a
new drug application, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for U.S. marketing authorization. Section
505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act allows the FDA to rely, for approval of an NDA, on data not developed by the applicant.
Such an NDA contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness, but where at least some of the information required
for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference.
Such applications permit approval of applications other than those for duplicate products and permits reliance for such approvals on
literature or an FDA finding of safety and/or effectiveness for an approved drug product. The Phase 2b University of Virginia investigator
sponsored clinical trial of AD04 for the treatment of AUD showed promising results and no overt safety concerns (there were no statistically
significant serious adverse events reported). Not only did the trials show no statistically significant, serious adverse side effects,
but both of the pre-specified endpoints, reduction in severity of drinking measured in drinks per day of drinking day and reduction in
frequency of drinking measured in days of abstinence, were met with statistical significance as shown in the graph below:
Our
Substantial Proprietary Estate and Protection from Competition
We
currently hold a worldwide, exclusive license to three (3) patent families that provide us with the ability to exclude potential competitors
from practicing the claimed inventions, such as the use of ondansetron to treat any of the four (4) specified genotypes for AUD. Our
licensed patent estate is expected to provide us patent protection through 2031. Ondansetron, the active ingredient in AD04, has never
been approved in a low dosage near the AD04 dose of 0.33mg per tablet, and we believe our licensed patents will protect AD04 from any
competitor that attempts to bring to market an ondansetron dose at or near the AD04 dose for treatment of patients having one or more
of the four target genotypes.
We
believe use of the currently marketed doses “off-label” will not be significant due to (i) the lack of demonstrated efficacy
at currently marketed doses, (ii) potential safety concerns if the currently marketed doses are used chronically as is expected to be
necessary for treating AUD, and (iii) cutting the smallest currently marketed dose into the 12 pieces that would be necessary to achieve
the AD04 dose is deemed by us to be impractical and likely to result in inaccurate dosing.
Experienced
Leadership
Our management, advisors and board of directors have extensive experience
in pharmaceutical development, the clinical trial and regulatory approval processes, drug commercialization, financing capital-intensive
projects, and developing new markets for pharmaceutical agents. Members of our team have previously worked in senior management and senior
officer positions, or led significant research initiatives at Indivior, Clinical Data, Shire, Viagene, New River Pharmaceuticals, Collateral
Therapeutics, Krystal Biotech, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Osiris Therapeutics, Adenosine Therapeutics, and the University of Virginia and
University of Maryland in a broad range of therapeutic areas. Our management and board members have particular expertise in the science
and development of addiction related drugs and bringing new drugs to the market.
Our
Strategy for AD04 and Addiction Related Diseases and Disorders
We
develop pharmaceutical treatments for addictions and addictive disorders and related diseases and disorders. Our business strategy is
to advance AD04, our lead investigational drug candidate, toward regulatory approval for alcohol addiction in the United States, the
European Union, and then eventually other territories. We subsequently plan to develop label expansions into other indications (e.g.,
opioid use disorder, other drug addictions, obesity, smoking cessation, eating disorders and anxiety). Additionally, we are inventing
and developing novel therapeutic agents at our chemistry facilities and seeking to acquire addiction related assets, particularly those
expected to be synergistic with AD04 once it is marketed, if it is approved.
Our
goals in executing this strategy are to keep capital requirements to a minimum, expedite product development, gain access to clinical
research and manufacturing expertise that will advance product development, approval and eventual market uptake of our product, and rely
on a well-defined and carefully executed intellectual property strategy in order to position our products with long-term, defensible,
competitive advantages. Execution of this strategy may include seeking grant funding and funding from partners and collaborators when
available on terms we believe to be favorable to us, and on which there is no guarantee will be available.
Our
near-term strategy includes:
|
● |
Obtaining
regulatory approval for our lead product in the United States and Europe. We have completed
our initial ONWARD Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of AUD in Scandinavia and Central
and Eastern Europe. Based on the ONWARD trial results, and after discussions with our regulatory
advisors and key opinion leaders (KOLs), we believe there is a clear, cost-effective path
toward FDA approval that we plan to aggressively pursue. This decision was based on a detailed
analysis of both the prior Phase 2 clinical trial and the recently completed ONWARD Phase
3 clinical trial. These results were reviewed with regulatory and statistical experts to
confirm their validity. Additionally, after these results were analyzed and confirmed, we
engaged commercial experts to confirm the value of this data as tested through market research
with physicians and payers.
The
detailed analysis of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 data identified two specific genotypes that we believe can meet the FDA’s prespecified,
confirmed and recommended primary endpoint, which is to measure the proportion of patients who attain and sustain zero heavy drinking
days in a pre-specified efficacy observation period, which was months five and six of the six-month study period in ONWARD. The prevalence
of patients with these genotypes, which performed best during the trials, is estimated to exist in about 20% of the AUD population.
Based
on the information collected and analyses to date, we have submitted a Type C meeting request to the FDA and was granted a meeting,
which will be held in Q2 of 2023. The Type C meeting is expected to provide us with confirmation of a clear clinical development
plan. As previously anticipated, it is possible an additional Phase 3 trial will be required. We currently intend to engage a U.S.
partner to assist with funding the anticipated required clinical trial and, assuming a successful outcome with FDA, to advance commercialization
efforts. We are exploring partnerships with companies that have an established commercial presence and existing relationships with
psychiatrists and addiction specialists. With an experienced partner, Adial believes it can rapidly penetrate the U.S. market given
the expectation of AD04 being widely accessible, reasonably priced, and reimbursable. |
|
● |
Prosecuting
and expanding our intellectual property and product portfolio. We have acquired rights to a promising drug candidate and made
a significant investment in the development of our licensed patent portfolio to protect our technologies and programs, and we intend
to continue to do so. We have obtained exclusive rights to three different patent families directed to therapeutic methods related
to our AD04 platform. These families include 3 issued U.S. patents, and at least one foreign equivalent patent covering AD04 issued
in over 40 national jurisdictions, including most of Europe and Eurasia. Divisional and continuation applications to expand the coverage
have also been filed in certain jurisdictions. Additionally, commencing in early 2021, we have an adenosine platform that has and
is expected to continue to generate what we believe are patentable new chemical entities. We intend that further product portfolio
expansions will be focused on promising addiction therapies and/or late-stage clinical assets. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Evaluating
the additional use of our product candidate in other indications. In addition to alcohol addiction, we plan to conduct exploratory
work to investigate using AD04 as a potential treatment for opioid use disorder, gambling addiction, smoking cessation, obesity,
and other addiction related disorders in which 5-HT3 antagonism may have a treatment effect. We believe we will be able to undertake
this initial exploratory effort with minimal additional cash cost to our company through the use of academic partnerships, grants,
human laboratory studies and/or non-clinical studies. We believe that, due to its hypothesized mechanism of action (i.e., the modulation
of the serotonin system in patients that are genetically targeted based on the apparent sensitivity to such modulation, where the
modulation appears to reduce cravings), AD04 has the potential to be used for the treatment of such other addictive disorders. To
date, we have not discussed these potential uses with the FDA or any other regulatory bodies. |
|
● |
Maximizing
commercial opportunity for our technology. AD04 targets large markets with significant unmet medical need. We intend to develop an
extended release, once-a-day formulation of AD04 to enhance compliance and market appeal. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Managing
our business with efficiency and discipline. We believe we have efficiently utilized our capital and human resources to
develop and acquire our product candidate and programs and create a broad intellectual property portfolio. We operate cross-functionally
and are led by an experienced management team with backgrounds in developing product candidates. We use project management techniques
to assist us in making disciplined strategic program decisions and to attempt to limit the risk profile of our product pipeline. |
The
clinical development plan for AD04 can be described as a two-stage development strategy in which we expend limited resources to achieve
the significant value inflection point of Phase 3 data in our primary indication of AUD. With a successful trial and the risk reduction
associated with that success, we would then be ready to conduct the final trials to seek approval in the U.S. and Europe as shown below:
AD04
— Two-Stage Clinical Development Strategy — Conduct the Phase 3 clinical trials sequentially, if required
| * | Even
if the 1st Phase 3 trial is not accepted by the FDA as a pivotal trial due to the study not being well-powered for the FDA’s
currently stated end point, we still expect that the EMA will require only one additional trial. In this case, however, a third trial
might be required by the FDA (i.e., three Phase 3 trials in total). If two additional trials are required for FDA approval after an initial
Phase 3 trial conducted in the EMA, we would expect to run the second and third trials in parallel (i.e., at the same time) so as not
to increase the expected time to approval. Based on the new expectations regarding the patient population and targeted genotypes and
subject to upcoming discussions with regulatory authorities, the second Phase 3 trial is expected to require $8-12 million in direct
expenses pending final trial design, and up to $5 million in additional other development expenses is expected to be required. A possible
third Phase 3 trial, if required, would be expected to require an additional $8-12 million in clinical trial related expenditures. |
Assuming
approval of AD04, we plan to execute a two-stage commercialization plan. With psychiatrists and addiction specialists treating a majority
of the current AUD patients today and with psychiatrists most likely to be familiar with the mechanism of action of AD04, we believe
that a relatively small psychiatry-targeted, specialty sales force could successfully sell AD04 into the market. This plan creates the
opportunity for us to develop into a commercial enterprise with an initial niche-market sales force at a relatively low cost for market
entry. It also expands the universe of potential acquirers of our company or AD04 to smaller and mid-size pharmaceutical companies. Once
success is shown in the niche market and the thought leaders and early adopters are prescribing AD04, market adoption risk will have
been greatly reduced and we would expect to be able to sell or partner with a large pharmaceutical partner to develop AD04 as a blockbuster
product. Concurrently, we are exploring partnerships with companies that have an established commercial presence and existing relationships
with psychiatrists and addiction specialists. With an experienced partner, we believe it can rapidly penetrate the U.S. and European
markets given the expectation of AD04 being widely accessible, reasonably priced, and reimbursable.
AD04
— Two-Stage Commercialization Strategy — Initial launch with a specialty sales force to build the market, then partner or
sell to a large pharmaceutical partner to capture market share and optimize the market
Ondansetron
History and Foundation for Treating AUD
Ondansetron
is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Preclinical and pharmacobehavioral studies suggest that blockade of serotonin-3 receptors will influence
the dopamine reward system activated by alcohol, decreasing dopamine release and attenuating craving for alcohol (Dawes, MA et al., 2005b;
Johnson, BA et al., 2002; Lovinger, DM, 1999a). Early clinical studies found that the efficacy of ondansetron is limited to certain subgroups
of the alcohol-dependent population and suggested the differential effect could be predicted based on age of onset of alcoholism, an
indistinct concept likely confounded by genetic, regional and ethnic differences (Johnson, BA et al., 2000; Kranzler, HR et al., 2003).
Recent research suggests the variable effect may be predictable based on molecular mechanism of ondansetron action and individual subject
genotype of key genes in the serotonin system (Enoch, MA et al., 2010; Johnson, BA et al., 2011; Kenna, GA et al., 2009).
We
are pursuing development of ondansetron in the alcohol-dependent population. Clinical studies are focused on the use of a low dose, oral
tablet (0.33 mg administered twice daily) to reduce alcohol consumption in subjects with genotypes that have been correlated with a responsive
to treatment with ondansetron.
Ondansetron
was first approved by the FDA in 1991 as a solution for injection. Subsequent approvals were obtained for oral tablets in dosage forms
and an oral solution. It is marketed as Zofran® and is also available in generic formulations, and it has been used widely
for the approved indications – prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with certain cancer chemotherapies and radiotherapies
and for the prevention of postoperative nausea or vomiting — at adult doses of 8–24 mg/day with manageable side effects.
Ondansetron
has been administered to dogs‚ rats‚ and mice as part of a preclinical toxicology program which included single-dose acute‚
repeated-dose studies. Ondansetron was not mutagenic in the standard battery of microbial tests for mutagenicity and no carcinogenic
effects were seen in 2-year studies in rats and mice with oral ondansetron doses up to 10 and 30 mg/kg/day, respectively. In studies
of rats and rabbits there was no evidence of reproductive toxicity seen on fertility, early embryonic development, perinatal/postnatal
development or fetal development of the F2 generation. Based on these studies, as well as over 20 years of human use in clinical trials
and the post-marketing environment, ondansetron is considered to be a well-tolerated drug with a generally mild safety profile.
Ondansetron,
by blocking the 5-HT3 receptor, is known to affect dopaminergic signaling in the brain; and the scientific rational for use of a 5-HT3
antagonist in the treatment of alcohol dependence is well established (Johnson, BA, 2004). Briefly, studies suggest that: the rewarding
effects of alcohol involve activation of the 5-HT3 receptors leading to release of dopamine within the mesolimbic system of the brain
(McBride, WJ et al., 2004). Thus, by blocking activation of the 5-HT3 receptor, ondansetron may reduce the ethanol-stimulated release
of dopamine leading to reduced feelings of pleasure or reward and consequently, reduced consumption (Carboni, E et al., 1989; Costall,
B et al., 1987; Hagan, RM et al., 1990; Imperato, A and Angelucci, L, 1989; Lovinger, DM, 1999b; McBride, WJ et al., 2004; Minabe, Y
et al., 1991; Rasmussen, K et al., 1991; Wozniak, KM et al., 1990; Yoshimoto, K et al., 1996).
Preclinical
studies have demonstrated that alcohol stimulates the release of both serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT) and dopamine within the
cortio-mesolimbic system (Campbell, AD et al., 1996; Campbell, AD and McBride, WJ, 1995; Di Chiara, G and Imperato, A, 1988; Imperato,
A and Angelucci, L, 1989; Yoshimoto, K et al., 1992; Yoshimoto, K et al., 1996; Zazpe, A et al., 1994). Other studies have shown that
alcohol potentiates the effects of 5-HT at the 5-HT3 receptor, leading to augmented release of dopamine, and that ondansetron and the
selective antagonists of the 5-HT3 receptor inhibit dopaminergic firing and release of dopamine in response to alcohol and serotonin
(Costall, B et al., 1987; Lovinger, DM, 1991; Minabe, Y et al., 1991; Rasmussen, K et al., 1991; Yoshimoto, K et al., 1996; Zazpe, A
et al., 1994; Zhou, Q et al., 1998). Finally, numerous in vivo studies in rats and mice have shown that ondansetron and other selective
antagonist of the 5-HT3 receptor reduce volitional intake of alcohol in models selectively bred for alcohol preference (Fadda, F et al.,
1991; Hodge, CW et al., 1993; McBride, WJ and Li, TK, 1998; Meert, TF, 1993; Tomkins, DM et al., 1995).
The
aforementioned nonclinical studies have shown that 5-HT3 and dopamine interactions in the cortico-mesolimbic system appear to mediate
many of the reinforcing effects of alcohol. Collectively the available nonclinical studies suggest that, by inhibiting the 5-HT3 receptor
and reducing the release of dopamine in the cortico-mesolimbic area, ondansetron can interfere with the dopamine reward system activated
by alcohol and lead to reduced alcohol intake (Barnes, NM and Sharp, T, 1999; Dawes, MA et al., 2005b; Johnson, BA et al.,
1993; Johnson, BA and Cowen, PJ, 1993; Lovinger, DM, 1991, 1999a; Swift, RM et al., 1996; Tomkins, DM et al., 1995).
Five
clinical studies have been conducted that demonstrate ondansetron is a promising treatment for alcohol-dependent individuals (Johnson,
BA et al., 2011; Johnson, BA et al., 2000; Kenna, GA et al., 2009; Kranzler, HR et al., 2003; Sellers, EM
et al., 1994). Several important findings in these studies guide the design of future clinical studies, including:
| (1) | Ondansetron’s
efficacy in alcohol-dependent individuals is associated optimally with a small dose of the compound (0.25-0.33 mg twice daily), a dose
that is <1/10 of the dose used for adults for the currently approved indications. |
| (2) | In
clinical studies in over 600 subjects, ondansetron was well-tolerated and safe, with a mild side-effect profile when administered to
currently drinking alcohol-dependent individuals. Overall, the types of adverse events reported during multi-week clinical studies in
alcohol dependence appear similar to those outlined in the package insert for the approved indications and to those reported in the literature
for treatment in chronic liver disease, chronic fatigue syndrome and schizophrenia. |
| (3) | The
extent of benefit with ondansetron treatment varies among different subtypes of alcohol-dependent subjects. Prior studies found that
ondansetron benefited subjects with early-onset alcoholism (EOA) but not late-onset alcoholism (LOA). The pharmacological reason for
this was not known, but it was presumed that the differential effect was due to a higher degree of serotonergic dysfunction in EOA (Johnson,
BA et al., 2000; Kranzler, HR et al., 2003). |
The
below table summarizes the five clinical studies demonstrating ondansetron is a promising treatment for alcohol-dependent individuals.
Study
type (Reference) |
|
Number of
Subjects |
|
Dosing
(Duration) |
|
Summary
Results |
Phase
2
(Sellers,
EM et al., Clinical Efficacy of the 5-HT3 Antagonist Ondansetron in Alcohol Abuse and Dependence, Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 18 (1994)
879-885.) |
|
71 |
|
0.25
mg, 2 mg, and placebo b.i.d.
(6 weeks) |
|
The
0.25 mg dose showed a near significant effect in reducing severity of drinking measured in DDD (p=0.06) while the 2 mg dose was similar
to placebo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase
2
(Johnson,
BA et al., Ondansetron for Reduction of Drinking among Biologically Predisposed Alcoholic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial,
JAMA, 284 (2000) 963-971)
|
|
321 |
|
1,
4, and 16 ug/kg b.i.d.
(11 weeks) |
|
Ondansetron
treatment at doses of 1, 4, and 16 µg/kg bid resulted in significant reductions in DDD in EOA subjects, but only the 4 µg/kg
dose showed such a reduction in frequency of drinking measured in PDA and the maximal effect was shown at the µg/kg does. Only
the 4 µg/kg bid showed significant improvements in PDA in the LOA group. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase
2
(Kranzler,
HR et al., A within-Group Design of Nontreatment Seeking 5-HTTLPR Genotyped Alcohol-Dependent Subjects Receiving Ondansetron and
Sertraline, Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 33 (2009) 315-323)
|
|
40 |
|
4
ug/kg bid for 8 weeks |
|
EOA
subjects showed significant improvement over LOA subjects in DDD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase
2
(Kenna,
GA et al., Pharmacogenetic Approach at the Serotonin Transporter Gene as a Method of Reducing the Severity of Alcohol Drinking, Am
J Psychiatry, 168 (2011) 265-275)
|
|
21 |
|
.5
mg/day for 3 weeks |
|
LL
genotype subject showed significant improvement in DDD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase
2b
(Johnson,
BA et al., Determination of Genotype Combinations That Can Predict the Outcome of the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence Using the 5-HT3
Antagonist Ondansetron, Am J Psychiatry (2013) |
|
283 |
|
4
ug/kg bid
(12 weeks, including 1 week placebo run-in) |
|
The
target genotype group showed significant improvement in DDD and PDA against both the placebo groups and other genotypes on drug. |
Additional
detail with respect to four of the clinical studies referenced in the chart above is provided below with the fifth being the Phase 2b
clinical trial upon which we are basing the development of AD04 and which is described more fully in the following section titled “Phase
2b Investigator Initiated Clinical Trial of AD04 for Alcohol Use Disorder Conducted by the University of Virginia.”
A
Dose-Ranging, Placebo-Controlled, 6-Week Study of Ondansetron in Alcoholic-Dependent Subjects
In
1994, Sellers et al. reported on the effects of administration of 0.25 mg bid ondansetron (N=23), 2 mg bid ondansetron (N=25),
or placebo (N=23) for 6 weeks in alcohol-dependent males (Sellers, EM et al., 1994). Endpoints included change in drinks per drinking
day (“DDD”) and proportion of responders, where a responder was defined as a subject with a Reliable Change score > 1.96,
representing an improvement of at least 2 standard deviations. The Reliable Change score was calculated as the difference between pre-
and post-test DDD divided by the standard error. Analyses were conducted comparing pre-treatment with the Week 6 visit, representing
the end-of-study medication administration, and pre-treatment with the Week 7 visit, after completion of a 1-week follow-up period.
In
the 71 subjects who completed the study, the on-treatment changes in DDD were approximately -1.9 (0.25 mg bid), -1.2 (2 mg bid), and
-1.3 (placebo), with neither ondansetron effect being statistically different from the placebo effect. The corresponding changes from
pre-treatment to Week 7 (after 6 weeks of treatment and a 1-week follow-up) were approximately -2.7 (0.25 mg bid), -1.1 (2 mg bid), and
-1.6 (placebo), with the difference between low-dose ondansetron and placebo approaching statistical significance (p=0.06). By Week 6,
nearly twice as many subjects on low-dose ondansetron compared with those on either high-dose ondansetron or placebo showed significant
improvement according to the Reliable Change score. Lower baseline drinking and higher level of education were significant predictors
of reduction in drinking while on treatment.
A
Dose-Ranging, Placebo-Controlled, 11-Week Study of Ondansetron in Alcoholic-Dependent Subjects
In
2000, Johnson et al. reported on the co-administration of weekly cognitive behavioral therapy and either placebo or ondansetron
at doses of 1, 4, and 16 µg/kg bid for 11 weeks (after a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in) in 321 alcohol-dependent subjects
(Johnson, BA et al., 2000). Endpoints included drinks per day, DDD, percentage of days abstinent (“PDA”), total days
abstinent, and plasma carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT) level, an objective measure of drinking. Analyses were conducted comparing
each dose group with placebo, with drinking response variables analyzed as means of data collected from Weeks 3 through 12.
The
table below sets forth treatment results. Ondansetron treatment at doses of 1, 4, and 16 µg/kg bid resulted in statistically significant
reductions in DDD and drinks per day compared with placebo for EOA (age of onset ≤25 years). The maximum clinical effect was
observed at the middle dose (4 µg/kg bid), though the differences between doses were not statistically significant. At 4 µg/kg
bid (but not at 1 or 16 µg/kg bid), significant improvements in days and PDA were also achieved. LOA (age of onset ≥26 years)
did not benefit from ondansetron treatment at any dose studied.
Treatment
Effect Size in EOA Subjects and Statistical Comparison to Placebo Effect
Variable |
|
1
µg/kg bid |
|
|
4
µg/kg bid |
|
|
16
µg/kg bid |
|
Drinks/drinking
day |
|
0.25
(p≤0.05) |
|
|
0.41
(p≤0.01) |
|
|
0.23
(p≤0.05) |
|
Drinks/day |
|
0.26
(p≤0.05) |
|
|
0.37
(p≤0.01) |
|
|
0.22
(p≤0.05) |
|
Days
abstinent (%) |
|
0.13(ns) |
|
|
0.26
(p≤0.01) |
|
|
0.17(ns) |
|
Days
abstinent |
|
0.06(ns) |
|
|
0.24
(p≤0.05) |
|
|
0.18(ns) |
|
The
findings in this study support the earlier evidence that the dose-response effect of ondansetron in reduction of alcohol consumption
is not linear. Of the doses used in this study, only 4 µg/kg (0.28 mg for a 70 kg person) bid exhibited clinically and statistically
meaningful improvements in all efficacy endpoints. This study also suggested that ondansetron may be an appropriate therapy for EOA,
but not LOA.
An
Open-Label, 8-Week Study Comparing Ondansetron Effect in Early-Onset and Late-Onset Alcoholic Subjects
In
2003, Kranzler et al. reported on the co-administration of weekly cognitive behavioral therapy and ondansetron at 4 µg/kg
bid for 8 weeks to 40 alcohol-dependent subjects (Kranzler, HR et al., 2003). The subjects were evenly divided between early-onset
alcoholism (EOA; age of onset of the disorder <25 years) and late-onset alcoholism (LOA; age of onset of the disorder ≥25 years).
Endpoints included drinks per day, DDD, PDA, Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInC) score, and percentage of heavy-drinking days,
where heavy drinking was defined as ≥5 drinks in a day for a male subject or ≥4 drinks in a day for a female subject. Analyses
were conducted comparing pre-treatment with 8-week values within onset category (EOA or LOA) and comparing treatment effects between
categories.
The
table below sets forth treatment results. All efficacy parameters improved significantly on treatment in both groups. EOA subjects reported
significantly greater improvements in drinks per day, DDD, and DrInC score than LOA subjects. These findings, as noted earlier by Johnson
et al., suggest that ondansetron shows promise for treatment of EOA by improving drinking outcomes.
Results
of Study Comparing Effects of Ondansetron in EOA versus LOA
|
|
EOA |
|
|
LOA |
|
|
EOA
v
LOA |
|
|
|
change mean
(SD) |
|
|
p-value |
|
|
change mean
(SD) |
|
|
p-value |
|
|
p-value |
|
Drinks/drinking
day |
|
5.78
(8.9) |
|
|
0.009 |
|
|
1.55
(2.0) |
|
|
0.004 |
|
|
0.032 |
|
Drinks/day |
|
4.53
(4.5) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
1.98
(2.1) |
|
|
0.001 |
|
|
0.013 |
|
Days
abstinent (%) |
|
30.2
(29.4) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
24.8
(21.2) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
0.373 |
|
Heavy-drinking
days (%) |
|
35.1
(24.7) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
26.7
(27.4) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
0.139 |
|
DrInC
total score |
|
30.3
(27.7) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
11.4
(11.2) |
|
|
<0.001 |
|
|
0.013 |
|
A
3-Period Study of Ondansetron Effect and Sertraline Effect in Subgroups of Alcoholics Constructed Based on Genotypes of the Serotonin
Transporter Gene
Constructed
Based on Genotypes of the Serotonin Transporter Gene
In
2009, Kenna et al. reported on a placebo-controlled cross-over study in which 21 alcohol-dependent subjects received 0.5 mg/day
ondansetron or 200 mg/day sertraline for 3 weeks, placebo for 3 weeks and the alternative active medication for 3 weeks (Kenna, GA et
al., 2009). An alcohol self-administration experiment was conducted at the end of each treatment period. The primary endpoint was
DDD during the final week of each treatment period.
During
the first 3-week treatment period, ondansetron-treated subjects carrying L/L genotype (n = 3), compared to the L/S and S/S carriers (n
= 4), had a significantly fewer DDD (3.66 vs. 8.40, p = 0.02). Within L/S and S/S group, there was no significant effect of ondansetron.
A pronounced order effect confounded analyses after the third 3-week treatment period.
Our
clinical development program is designed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of ondansetron in the alcohol-dependent population in
low dosages for long periods of time, while targeting genotypes that have been shown to benefit from ondansetron treatment. Ultimately,
this development program aims to establish a scientific link between the biology of alcohol addiction and the therapeutic mechanism of
ondansetron action, permitting genetically-based prediction of ondansetron effectiveness.
License
with University of Virginia Patent Foundation
In
January 2011, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide license agreement with UVA LVG for rights to make, use or sell licensed products
in the United States based upon the patents and patent applications made and held by UVA LVG (the “UVA LVG License”). Three
patent and patent application families are included in the UVA LVG License, with patents issued in over 40 countries, including, without
limitation, in the U.S., Europe and Eurasia. The licensed patents and patent applications currently include the below listed U.S. patents
and patent application and any divisional patents, continuation patents and foreign equivalents.
| 1. | U.S.
Patent Number 8,697,361, filed 1/11/11 |
“Serotonin
Transporter Gene and Treatment of Alcoholism”
| 2. | U.S.
Patent Number 10,533,226, filed 9/17/18 |
“Serotonin
Transporter Gene and Treatment of Alcoholism”
| 3. | U.S.
Patent Number 8,753,815, filed 8/20/12 |
“Molecular
genetic approach to treatment and diagnosis of alcohol and drug dependence”
| 4. | U.S.
Patent Number 9,539,242, filed 4/30/14 |
“Molecular
genetic approach to treatment and diagnosis of alcohol and drug dependence”
| 5. | U.S.
Patent Number 10,603,307, filed 1/3/17 |
“Molecular
genetic approach to treatment and diagnosis of alcohol and drug dependence”
| 6. | U.S.
Patent Number 11,116,753, filed 10/2/20 |
“Molecular
genetic approach to treatment and diagnosis of alcohol and drug dependence”
| 7. | U.S.
Patent Number 11,351,154, filed 7/17/20 |
“Molecular
genetic approach to treatment and diagnosis of alcohol and drug dependence”
Additionally,
the UVA LVG License grants rights to data and know-how developed by the University of Virginia related to AD04, including, without limitation,
to the data from the Phase 2b study described above.
As
consideration for the rights granted in the license agreement, we are obligated to pay UVA LVG yearly license fees and milestone payments,
and a royalty based on net sales of products covered by the patent-related rights set forth above. More specifically, upon commencement
of the license we issued to UVA LVG Class A Units (which was equal to four percent (4%) of our equity on the date of issuance) as a license
issue. We are obligated to pay UVA LVG (i) annual minimum royalties of $40,000 commencing in 2017; (ii)a $20,000 milestone payments that
as originally due upon dosing the first patient under a Phase 3 human clinical trial of a licensed product but has been paid in full,
$155,000 upon the earlier of the completion of a Phase 3 trial of a licensed product or the partnering of the licensed or sale of our
company, which was paid in 2022 with completion of the ONWARD trial, $275,000 upon acceptance of an NDA by the FDA, and $1,000,000 upon
approval for sale of AD04 in the U.S., Europe or Japan; and (iii) royalties equal to a 2% and 1% of net sales of licensed products in
countries in which a valid patent exists or does not exist, respectively, with royalties paid quarterly. In the event of a sublicense
to a third party, we are obligated to pay royalties to UVA LVG equal to a percentage of what we would have been required to pay to UVA
LVG had we sold the products under sublicense ourselves. In addition, we are required to pay to UVA LVG 15% of any sublicensing income.
The license agreement, as amended on December 14, 2017 and further amended on December 18, 2019 and December 31, 2019 sets forth specific
milestones completion deadlines including using commercially reasonable efforts to submit an NDA by December 31, 2024 and commence commercialization
of an FDA approved product by December 31, 2025. The license agreement may be terminated by UVA LVG upon sixty (60) days written notice
if we breach our obligations thereunder, including failing to make any milestone, or failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to
submit an NDA or commence commercialization within the date specified above, failing to make other required payments, or the failure
to exercise diligence to bring licensed products to market. In the event of a termination, we will be obligated to pay all amounts that
accrued prior to such termination. The license agreement also contains other customary clauses and terms as are common in similar agreements
between industry and academia, including agreements to indemnify UVA LVG for any liabilities arising out of or related to the licensee’s
exercise of its rights under the license agreement, making the license grant subject to the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.), the
reservation of the licensor of the right to use the licensed intellectual property rights for its internal, non-commercial purposes,
limitations/disclaimers of various warranties and representations, reporting and record-keeping requirements, and licensee liability
insurance requirements.
The
term of the license continues until the expiration, abandonment or invalidation of the licensed patents, and following any such expiration,
abandonment or invalidation will continue in perpetuity on a royalty-free, fully paid basis.
The
UVA LVG currently has a policy under which up to 35% of the payments made to the UVA LVG under a license may be distributed to inventor
of the licensed technology, therefor our Chief Medical Officer in his capacity as inventor of the patents licensed by us from the UVA
LVG may be eligible to receive such payments from the UVA LVG.
PEPCO
MSA
On
July 5, 2019, we entered into a Master Services Agreement (the “MSA”) and attached statement of work (the “SOW”)
with Psychological Education Publishing Company (“PEPCO”) to administer a behavioral therapy program during our upcoming
Phase 3 clinical trial using AD04, for the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Specifically, PEPCO is engaged in the business of training
and certifying clinical investigators in the administration of Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment (“BBCET”).
PEPCO is owned by Dr. Bankole Johnson, our Chief Medical Officer. We may terminate the MSA at any time upon ten (10) days prior written
notice to PEPCO. Unless otherwise indicated in our notice of termination, Work (as defined in the MSA) under any statement of work in
progress at the time of the delivery of notice of termination shall continue as if the applicable statement of work had not been terminated,
and the terms hereof shall continue to apply to such work. We may also terminate the MSA for cause due to PEPCO’s failure to perform
its obligations thereunder upon three (3) days prior written notice to PEPCO; provided, however, the Company may terminate the MSA immediately
in the event of PEPCO’s violation, or threatened violation, of certain provisions contained therein.
The
statement of work under the MSA will terminate upon the completion the final study report for the Trial and delivery of the final report
by PEPCO on the supervision and monitoring of the BBCET, including, without limitation, data reports. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the
statement of work may be terminated by us upon written notice to PEPCO.
It
was anticipated that the compensation to be paid to PEPCO for services under the MSA will be approximately $300,000, of which subject
to approval of the Nasdaq Capital Market shares of our common stock having a value equal to twenty percent (20%) of the fees due thereunder
(the “Company Shares”) would have been issued to Dr. Johnson as a consultant under the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan.
On
December 12, 2019, we entered into an Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the SOW. We had paid PEPCO $39,064 under the SOW for
services rendered to date, leaving as estimated balance of $274,779 estimated to be paid under the SOW. The Amendment provided us with
a 20% discount on the remaining services to be provided under the SOW and fixed the price of any remaining services under the SOW to
be a total of $219,823 for all services required for the use of Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment (BBCET) in support
of Phase 3 clinical trial provided that payment be made no later than December 13, 2019, which payment was made. As of December 31, 2022,
the Company had recognized $258,887 in expenses associated with this MSA, of which $219,823 were charged against cash advanced under
the terms of the Amendment, leaving no additional expenses to be recognized under this agreement.
In
addition, Dr. Johnson executed a guaranty, dated December 12, 2019, of PEPCO’s performance under the MSA and SOW (the “Guaranty”),
together with a pledge and security agreement, dated December 12, 2019 (the “Pledge and Security Agreement”), to secure the
Guaranty with 600,000 shares of our common stock beneficially owned by him and a lock-up agreement, dated December 12, 2019 (the “Lock-Up”),
pursuant to which he agreed not to transfer or dispose of, directly or indirectly, any shares of our common stock, as currently owned
by him, until after January 1, 2021.
On
August 19, 2020, we and Dr. Bankole Johnson entered into a Lock-Up Agreement Extension and Right of First Refusal (the “Lock-Up
Extension”), which amended the Lock-Up Agreement that they had entered into dated December 12, 2019 (the “Lock-Up”).
The Lock-Up Extension extended the term of Dr. Johnson’s Lock-Up from January 1, 2021 until April 1, 2021. In connection with the
Lock-Up Extension, Dr. Johnson was released from his Lock-Up restrictions with respect to 350,000 shares of our common stock, in order
to enable Dr. Johnson to fund his new clinic focused on brain wellness and addiction treatments, Privée Clinics, LLC. Additionally,
under the Lock-Up Extension, we were granted a right of first refusal for future financings in Privée Clinics, LLC
On
May 11, 2021, we entered into an Amendment 2 (the “Amendment 2”) to the SOW. Under Amendment 2, we agreed to pay PEPCO and
additional $25,000 due to the change of scope due to the increased number of clinical sites initiated and trained as part of the ONWARD
Phase 3 trial.
Protection
from Generic Competition
Since
our inception, we have focused on taking action primarily through the filing of patents geared toward ensuring AD04 will have market
exclusivity for several years after it is launched with particular focus on the U.S. and Europe. Ondansetron, the active pharmaceutical
ingredient (“API”) of AD04 was granted FDA approval as Zofran® for the treatment of post-operative and post-chemotherapy
nausea and emesis in January 1991 and is now commercially available in generic form at doses from more than 12 times the AD04 dose to
over 70 times the AD04 dose with the highest doses being administered intravenously (“i.v.”), which provides almost twice
the drug exposure levels as oral dosing. With generic ondansetron available, the following threats have been addressed: (i) the potential
use of currently available ondansetron products (i.e., Zofran®) “off-label”, and (ii) the potential manufacturing
and launching of a generic version AD04 by a competitor.
Limited
Threat of “Off-label” Use of Zofran ®
The
lowest doses of Zofran® tablets (and its generic equivalents) on the market are a 4 mg and 8 mg tablet as compared to
AD04, which is currently formulated as a 0.33 mg tablet (12.2 times less than the 4 mg tablet). Thus, in order for a patient to use tablets
already on the market and get the AD04 dose, a patient would have to cut the 4 mg tablet into 12 parts (or the 8 mg tablet into 24 parts),
which we do not believe is reasonably possible; and, even with precise sectioning into 12 pieces, the dose may still not be accurate
because tablets at the Zofran® dose have not been manufactured to ensure uniformity of distribution of the active ingredient
across the tablet. Therefore, we believe that the risk of a large number of patients attempting to cut the currently marketed tablet
to achieve the AD04 dose to be extremely low.
Since
we do not believe that Zofran® tablets can be used as a substitute for AD04, the main question related to the potential
for off-label use of the current products for treating addictions then becomes whether doctors and patients will believe it is possible
to use the currently available, higher doses of ondansetron to treat addictions, including AUD. We believe doctors are extremely unlikely
to prescribe currently available high dose versions of ondansetron and that any such prescribing that dose will likely be limited and
immaterial to the sales of AD04 for two reasons — (1) we believe the high doses are unlikely to be efficacious as a treatment for
AUD, and (2) we believe the high doses would likely raise significant safety concerns.
|
1. |
Lack
of Efficacy. The high doses of ondansetron found in Zofran® have been tested in clinical trials for treating AUD
and have not shown efficacy against AUD (Sellers, et. al. 1994). At best, existing trial results do not suggest that the high Zofran®-level
doses of ondansetron currently on the market and approved for nausea and emesis will be effective. |
|
2. |
Safety
Concerns. While high-dose ondansetron is safe and tolerable at the doses on the market if administered acutely (i.e., dosed for
a few hours i.v. or a few days orally) as is done for post-operative and post-chemotherapy nausea and emesis, the drug is known to
have cardiovascular side effects at higher doses, and results from clinical studies suggest that high doses of ondansetron may affect
the electrical activity of the heart. In fact, the FDA withdrew approval of the 32 mg i.v. Zofran® product that was
previously on the market. As part of the FDA’s on-going safety review of currently available ondansetron doses, the FDA has
stated that: “Ondansetron at currently marketed levels may increase the risk of developing prolongation of the QT interval
of the electrocardiogram, which can lead to an abnormal or potentially fatal heart rhythm.” There are also several recent lawsuits
claiming that Zofran® used for off label for morning sickness causes birth defects. Thus, if the currently available
high-dose ondansetron was used chronically as would be needed for treating addiction there could potentially be significant safety
concerns without additional clinical studies related to the chronic dosing of currently available ondansetron. At the lower dose
of ondansetron in AD04, our product is almost as low as one one-hundredth of the dose of i.v. ondansetron that was removed from the
market. The FDA has stated that we can commence chronic dosing of patients with AD04 without any further safety or non-clinical studies. |
Therefore,
we do not expect physicians to prescribe current ondansetron doses for currently unapproved use for treating AUD because there is no
evidence those doses would work for treating AUD and there may be safety concerns associated with the chronic administration of currently
available doses.
There
is also a liquid, pediatric formulation of Zofran® on the market. It is offered in a 50 mL bottle that is available for
a little over $100 online and would provide a 2-month supply of AD04 if dosed at the 0.4 mL required to achieve the 0.33 mg AD04 dose.
Our risk assessment is that, though it would be possible to use the liquid formulation for administering a dose of ondansetron equivalent
to AD04, it is not expected to be a practice that would materially impact the sales of AD04, and the risk from the liquid formulation
is low for the following reasons:
| 1. | Compliance
concerns. In the field of addiction, patient compliance is one of the biggest concerns for both the physicians and the patients themselves.
A treatment not appropriately administered is a treatment that will not work. Oral tablets have been shown to have one of the highest
compliance rates over other dosage forms. It is likely that both physicians and patients will demand the tablet in order to improve compliance
and, thus, treatment success rates. |
| 2. | Inconvenient,
complicated delivery. A major driver of compliance is the convenience of appropriately administering the drug. Appropriate delivery
of the liquid formulation would require patients to measure each dose into a graduated dropper or syringe (administration of such a small
amount (0.4 mL) by graduated cup would not be practical). Cleanup of the sticky product would be inconvenient as would transportation
and storage, and an opened bottle would need to be used within 4 weeks (per UKPAR). Therefore, we expect that AD04’s convenient
tablet would increase patient compliance relative to the liquid formulation. Bottle breakage and spillage will also be a concern. |
| 3. | Dosing
Accuracy. Dosing accuracy is particularly important when using ondansetron to treat alcoholism due to the limitations of the therapeutic
window and the cardiovascular side effects at high doses. With the liquid formulation, measuring the small (0.4 mL) dose will be difficult
with great opportunity for misdosing even if a graduated syringe is used. In real-world practice, many patients would use other methods
such as estimated pouring into cups and drinking directly from the bottle. Misdosing could significantly affect the safety and/or efficacy
of the treatment. |
| 4. | Lack
of physician motivation to prescribe the liquid formulation. Given the known compliance advantages of oral tablets vs. liquid formulations,
the heightened need for compliance in this particular patient population, and the concerns around dosing accuracy with a liquid formulation,
we believe it is likely physicians would recognize the risk of prescribing the liquid formulation off-label and so be unwilling to prescribe
it. For insured patients, any differential in co-payments would create little incentive to use the liquid formulation relative to the
compliance and inconvenience problems. |
| 5. | Lack
of competitive marketing. Manufacturers of liquid ondansetron are not allowed to market for reduction in alcohol use disorder because
reduction in alcohol use disorder is not an approved indication for their product. Furthermore, most generic companies do not have marketing
efforts of any kind. |
| 6. | Litigation
risk to large prescribers. If a large clinic (such as a rehabilitation clinic) prescribes or provides the liquid formulation off-label,
the institution could be liable for inducing infringement of our licensed patents. |
In
summary, we do not expect off-label use of currently available ondansetron to meaningfully impact the sales of AD04.
Protection
from a Competitor Launching a Generic Version of AD04.
We
believe that we have licensed the patent protection necessary to protect us against the launch by a competitor of a generic version of
AD04. The label being sought for AD04 will be:
The
use of AD04 (i.e., ondansetron) for the treatment of patients that are positive for the specified genetic markers.
The
only use for the AD04 dose of ondansetron will be under this label.
Our
licensed patents cover the following:
The
use of AD04 (i.e., ondansetron) for the treatment of patients that are positive for the specified genetic markers.
We
believe that any attempt by competitors to reformulate and market ondansetron at our intended dosage levels, while technically feasible,
can be interpreted under current case law as inducement to infringe on our intellectual property rights, which should, accordingly, be
actionable. Additionally, there will be no unpatented use for the AD04 dose of ondansetron. So, a competitor that sells a product containing
the AD04 dose of ondansetron will indirectly infringe our licensed patents, which should, accordingly, be actionable.
A
competitor could sell a dose equal to that of AD04 and avoid our licensed patents if they conduct a Phase 3 program using the AD04 dose
to treat a different label indication and achieved successful results and approval. We do not know of any clinical development programs
of ondansetron underway at this time and so consider this risk to be negligible.
Purnovate
and the Adenosine Platform
Overview
–Unlocking the Promise of Adenosine
Purnovate,
Inc. (“Purnovate”) is a development-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of therapeutic agents that
selectively activate or block one or more of the adenosine receptors (i.e., selective agonists and antagonists). We believe we have developed
novel chemistries that change the physical properties relative to historical adenosine analogs (i.e., molecules related to the adenosine
neurotransmitter) to allow us to create novel and patentable new chemical entities (“NCE’s”) (i.e., novel molecules/drug
candidates) that are selective and potent against the targeted receptors while also having the physical properties to allow significant
tissue penetration – our Adenosine Platform. This is expected to allow us to unlock the previously elusive promise of adenosine
compounds and target large unmet medical needs. Initial targets include, without limitation, pain, cancer, asthma, diabetes, and inflammatory
diseases and disorders such as wound/burn healing, inflammatory bowel disorder, and infectious diseases where cytokine storms play a
significant role (i.e., COVID, MRSA, sepsis). All of Purnovate’s compounds are currently pre-clinical.
Purnovate
was founded to invent and develop drug candidates based on what we believe are the breakthrough chemistry concepts of our founding scientist,
Dr. Robert D. Thompson, to allow the creation of molecules for the treatment of serious diseases and disorders.
For
a compound to have a high probability of being successfully developed into a drug, we believe it is important that it be stable (e.g.,
will not degrade before it can be dosed, which historically has not been a problem for adenosine analogs) and have the following characteristics:
| ● | Potency
(e.g., bind to target receptors strongly so that it can compete with naturally occurring molecules attempting to also bind to the
target receptor) |
| ● | Selectivity
(e.g., bind to target receptors while not binding to receptors that will cause undesirable side effects) |
| ● | Biodistribution
(e.g., the ability to reach and penetrate in vivo to the target tissues) |
| o | Solubility
(e.g., ability to dissolve in water) is often an indicator of whether a molecule will achieve oral bioavailability and tissue penetration
as humans/mammals are largely made of water. |
Historically,
adenosine analogs have been able to achieve one or two of the above stated characteristics and therefore had either limited efficacy
or side effects that limit their usefulness. We believe our Adenosine Platform already has developed molecules with the above characteristics
and that it will continue to allow invention of additional molecules with those characteristics.
Purnovate
also has a proprietary purification technology developed by Dr. Thompson. This technology allows us to rapidly and cost effectively produce
novel compounds, which is one of the reasons we have been so successful to date with new compounds in less than two years of chemistry
operations.
We
also believe the physical property changes that we have already successfully applied to adenosine compounds may be useful in chemical
classes outside of the field of adenosine and intend to explore expansion beyond adenosine analogs in the future.
Purnovate
Option Agreement
On
January 27, 2023, we and Adenomed LLC (“Buyer”) entered into the Option Agreement pursuant to which we granted to the Buyer
an exclusive option for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the effective date of the Agreement for Buyer or its designated
affiliate to acquire all of the assets of Purnovate. William Stilley, one of our directors and our Executive Vice President and Chief
Executive Officer of Purnovate, serves as the President of Buyer and is the principal stockholder of Buyer.
As
consideration for the Option Agreement, we and Mr. Stilley entered into an amendment to Mr. Stilley’s employment agreement, as
amended (the “Stilley Amendment”), that (i) deleted the provision of the employment agreement that provided that the termination
by Mr. Stilley of his employment on or before February 22, 2023 shall be deemed to be a termination by him for good reason and (ii) added
a provision to the employment agreement providing that Mr. Stilley will not serve on a full time basis for us and may provide services
to other businesses including Buyer. The Option Agreement also provides that the Buyer may elect to acquire all of the equity of Purnovate
from us instead of purchase all of the assets of Purnovate.
The
Buyer has the right to extend the Option Term for an additional thirty (30) consecutive day period by the payment of One Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($100,000) to the Company prior to the end of the original Option Term, and Buyer may also extend the Option Term for another
thirty (30) consecutive day period by the payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to the Company prior to the end of the extended
Option Term. The Buyer has the right to exercise the Option by paying a cash exercise price of $150,000. Upon exercise of the Option,
we will transfer to and Buyer will assume liabilities of Purnovate, including: (i) trade payables incurred for services or purchases
by Purnovate exclusively for its research operations; (ii) any unpaid salaries of personnel on Purnovate’s payroll; and (iii) the
lease for 1180 Seminole Trail, Suite 495, Charlottesville, VA 22901 (as modified). All other Purnovate liabilities, shall be retained
by, or transferred to, us and any amounts owed by Purnovate to us will be extinguished. We will be reimbursed by Buyer for any Purnovate
expenditures incurred and paid commencing December 2022, to be paid within thirty (30) days of execution of the final acquisition agreement,
and will hold a security interest in the assets of Buyer until the expense reimbursement is paid in full and the equity in Buyer described
below is issued to us.
The
Option Agreement sets forth the terms of the definitive acquisition agreement to be negotiated in good faith by the parties after exercise
of the Option which include: (i) an upfront cash payment of $300,000 upon the Option exercise; (ii) the issuance by Buyer to us of 19.99%
of the equity of Buyer within thirty (30) days of execution of the final acquisition agreement (such 19.99% to be subject to anti-dilution
protection until the Buyer has raised $4,000,000); (iii) the assumption by Buyer of our obligations under that certain Equity Purchase
Agreement by and among us, Purnovate, the members of Purnovate, and Robert D. Thompson as the member’s representative, dated December
7, 2020 and amended January 25, 2021 (the “PNV EPA”); (iv) the assumption by Buyer of our obligations under that certain
Employment Agreement, dated July 31, 2018, as amended, by and between us and William Stilley; (v) a low, single digit royalty payments
on net sales; (vi) cash payments of up to approximately $11 million in development and approval milestones for each compound after payments
to the prior members of Purnovate pursuant to the PNV EPA; and (vii) cash payments of up to an aggregate of $50,000,000 upon the achievement
of certain commercial milestones.
The
Option Agreement was approved by our Board of Directors and by a committee of our Board of Directors consisting solely of independent
directors.
Acquisition
of Purnovate, LLC – Transaction Description and Terms
On
January 26, 2021, we closed the acquisition (the “Acquisition”) contemplated by PNV EPA.
Prior
to closing, we advanced Purnovate $350,000 for use as working capital during the due diligence period. At closing, this note became an
intra-company obligation. In exchange for Purnovate, Adial paid the members an additional $350,000 (the “Cash Consideration”)
and issued to the members an aggregate of approximately 700,000 shares of Adial restricted common stock (the “Stock Consideration”)
with an approximate fair value (total market value net of discounting for restriction) of $1,060,000. In addition, members will receive
(i) development milestone payments in an aggregate amount of up to $2,100,000 for each compound developed, (ii) development milestone
payments in an aggregate amount of up to $20,000,000 for each compound commercialized, and (iii) royalties of 3.0% of Net Sales (as such
term is defined in the Purchase Agreement).
The
Stock Consideration was placed into escrow to secure certain indemnification and other obligations of Purnovate and the members in connection
with the Acquisition, all of which has been released from escrow other than 193,717 shares to be received by Dr. Thompson that are held
in escrow until the earlier of the two (2) year anniversary of the closing or on the termination date of his employment if termination
is by us without cause and 201,109 shares held by William Stilley that are held in escrow until the earlier of the two (2) year anniversary
of the closing with respect to all of such shares to be received by him or on the termination date of his employment if termination is
by us without cause.
The
PNV EPA contains customary representations, warranties and covenants of us, Purnovate and the equity holders. Subject to certain customary
limitations, the members have agreed to indemnify us and our officers and directors against certain losses related to, among other things,
breaches of Purnovate’s and the Members’ representations and warranties, certain specified liabilities and the failure to
perform covenants or obligations under the Purchase Agreement.
In
connection with the Acquisition, Dr. Thompson entered into an employment agreement with us and a lock-up agreement with a term of two
(2) years with respect to fifty percent (50%) of the Stock Consideration received by him, or his termination of employment by us without
cause, if earlier. William Stilley entered into a lock-up agreement with a term of two (2) years with respect to one hundred percent
(100%) of the Stock Consideration received by him, or his respective termination of employment by us without cause, if earlier.
William B. Stilley, our then President and Chief Executive Officer
and a member of its board of directors, and James W. Newman, a member of our board of directors, were members of Purnovate. In connection
with the Acquisition Mr. Stilley sold approximately a 28.7% interest in Purnovate for 201,109 shares of Adial common stock and Mr. Newman,
through two entities he controls, together sold an aggregate 0.53% interest in Purnovate for 3,731 shares of Adial common stock, which
shares have been placed in escrow. Messrs. Stilley and Newman, through two entities he controls, also received their respective pro rata
share of the cash consideration paid by us to the Members.
Chemistry
and Manufacturing
We
operate our own leased chemistry laboratories, which are collocated with our corporate offices in approximately 4,175 square feet of
leased space.
Our
laboratories have chemical synthesis/production, purification and analytical capabilities, including without limitation, high performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), mass spectrometry (LCMS), purification column production, and access to structural elucidation through
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). We invent and create molecules in this laboratory and also produce gram-scale quantities for early
testing. As we progress toward human testing, we will contract with third party vendors for clinical trial material made under current
good manufacturing practices (cGMP).
Purnovate
Intellectual Property
All
products we have pursued as drug development candidates have been internally invented, novel and patentable novel chemical entities (“NCE’s”).
Therefore, all of our products are expected to have “composition of matter” patent protection for twenty years (i.e., until
2041 or later), plus expected statutory extensions such as patent term adjustments under 35 U.S.C. § 154 or patent term extensions
under Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, PL 98-417, S 1538 98 Stat. 1585 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”),
which, together, could extend the market exclusivity of our products for five years or more. For most products we also plan to pursue
use, formulation, and process patents to buttress our patent estate and product protection and which may further extend the duration
of our market exclusivity.
We
believe our compounds represent a new generation of adenosine analogs. Our composition of matter claims in the patent application are
broad in the area of adenosine and, due to our knowledge of the area, have been drafted to cover what we believe will be the most expansive
adenosine patent estate in existence. Because of the possible variations around our core inventions, the patents are expected to cover
trillions of potential new compounds. We expect to continue to expand our portfolio to cover additional compounds many times that number
as we progress our chemistry program.
We
also possess proprietary purification technology developed by Dr. Thompson. This technology is protected as a trade secret.
Governmental
Regulation
Our
business is subject to extensive laws and regulations, the most significant of which are summarized below.
FDA
Approval Process
In
the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
“FDC Act”), and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, 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. In the United States, pharmaceutical products used for the prevention,
treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to extensive regulation under the FDC Act. Failure to comply
with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to
approve pending NDAs, 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 product or certain changes to an approved product in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory
and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application (“IND”), which must become effective
before clinical testing 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 typically takes many
years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease.
Preclinical
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 preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements,
including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical 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 preclinical
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. However,
the FDA can impose a clinical hold after 30 days if it has safety or compliance-related concerns.
Clinical
trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug or biologic 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 good
clinical practice (“GCP”), an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of subjects and to define the
roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (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.
subjects and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
As
noted, 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 subjects in clinical trials must also be submitted
to an institutional review board (“IRB”), for approval. 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, for safety or other concerns, or may impose
other conditions.
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 or biologic into healthy human subjects or patients, the product 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 or biologic for a particular
indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If preliminary 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 or biologic and to provide adequate information for the labeling
of the product. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy
of the drug or biologic.
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 United States. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing
and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and control. 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 $2.5 million for fiscal year 2019 (although a waiver is possible in certain cases), and the manufacturer and/or sponsor under
an approved new drug application are also subject to a program fee set at more than $309,000 for fiscal year 2019. These fees are typically
increased annually.
The
FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s
threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the
FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. Most such applications for standard
review drug or biologic products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs or biologics are
reviewed in six to eight months. The FDA can extend these reviews by three months. 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 may also refer applications for novel drug or biologic products, or drug or biologic products that present difficult questions of
safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee — typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts — for review,
evaluation, and a recommendation on questions raised by an application, including whether the application should be approved. 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 typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility
or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current good manufacturing
practice (“cGMP”) is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug or biologic is
safe and effective in the indication studied.
After
the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”).
In some cases, FDA may choose to extend the review time, in consultation with the sponsor. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies
in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application.
If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue
an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.
An
approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications.
As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits
of the drug outweigh the potential risks. 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 product. Moreover, product approval may require substantial
post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’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. The FDA could also
impose a boxed warning (sometimes referred to as a Black Box Warning) in the product label if it identifies a specific risk that requires
particular attention. This imposition of a Black Box Warning limits certain types of promotions.
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 a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented.
Enacted
in 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), in part, revises the drug and device review and approval
processes at the FDA. The Cures Act, which was signed into law on December 13, 2016, among other things, requires the manufacturer of
an investigational drug for a serious disease or condition to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating
and responding to requests for individual patient access to such investigational drug. This requirement applies on the later of 60 calendar
days after the date of enactment of the Cures Act or the first initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial of the investigational drug.
The
FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation,
which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment
of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. We believe AD04 may
qualify for one or more of these programs and intend to purse one or more of them as part of our strategy to expedite the approval of
AD04 for marketing.
Post-Approval
Requirements
Once
an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval
marketing and promotion of drugs and biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored
scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs and biologics may be marketed only for
the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.
Adverse
event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-marketing
testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and special surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place
other conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture,
packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug and biologic manufacturers must list the product
with the FDA, and they and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state
agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects
manufacturing and other facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to
expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities
may withdraw product approvals, issue warning or other letters, suspend production activities, or request product recalls if a company
fails to comply with regulatory standards, or take other regulatory or enforcement action if it encounters problems following initial
marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered. Significant expenses are required to correct deficiencies.
Companion
diagnostics and complementary diagnostics
We
believe that the success of our product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of either a companion
diagnostic or complementary diagnostic. Companion diagnostics and complementary diagnostics can identify patients who are most likely
to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result
of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose
of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics and complementary diagnostics are regulated
as medical devices by the FDA and, as such, require either clearance or approval prior to commercialization. The level of risk combined
with available controls to mitigate risk determines whether a companion diagnostic device requires Premarket Approval Application, or
PMA, approval or is cleared through the 510(k) premarket notification process. For a novel therapeutic product for which a companion
diagnostic device is essential for the safe and effective use of the product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and
approved or 510(k)-cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic. The use of the companion diagnostic device will be stipulated in the
labeling of the therapeutic product. This is also true for a complementary diagnostic, although it is not a prerequisite for receiving
the therapeutic. Currently, we intend to submit a 505(b)(2) new drug application to the FDA for AD04. We have interacted primarily
with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in consultation with the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological
Health. We expect to need approval of a PMA or a 510(k) from CDRH for the companion diagnostics to be used with the drug product. If
the FDA requires a separate application for the diagnostic, this could potentially delay the approval of the new drug application for
AD04, complicate the review process, or even lead to the rejection of the new drug application.
Hatch-Waxman
Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Under
certain circumstances, an approved application may be eligible for three years of non-patent market exclusivity provided by the Hatch-Waxman
Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA might grant such exclusivity, (which would be separate from any patent
protection to which an approved drug might be entitled) if the applicant conducted new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability
studies) that are new and essential to the application’s approval. Among the types of exclusivity are those for a “new chemical
entity” and those for a new formulation or indication for a previously-approved drug. If granted, marketing exclusivity for the
types of products that include only drugs with innovative changes to previously-approved products using the same active ingredient, might
prohibit the FDA from approving an application for a competitor product, such as an abbreviated new drug application or a 505(b)(2) NDA
relying on the finding of safety and efficacy for three years. This three-year exclusivity, however, covers only the innovation associated
with the original NDA. It does not prohibit the FDA from approving applications for drugs with the same active ingredient but without
the new innovative change. These marketing exclusivity protections do not prohibit the FDA from approving a full NDA, even if it contains
the innovative change. There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant such exclusivity and competitors can try to seek approval of competitive
products, notwithstanding the exclusivity. However, if three years of exclusivity is afforded, it offers us one more barrier to competitor
entry for a few years.
505(b)(2)
NDA
For
AD04, we intend to submit a 505(b)(2) NDA. A 505(b)(2) NDA provided by Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
allows the FDA to rely, for approval of an NDA, on data not developed by the applicant. Such an NDA, referred to as a 505(b)(2) application
contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness, but where at least some of the information required for approval
comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Such applications
permit approval of applications other than those for duplicate products and permit reliance for such approvals on scientific literature
or an FDA finding of safety and/or effectiveness for a previously approved drug product. While each application is different, these types
of applications will typically require bridging studies (to support the change or modification from the listed drug) and could require
clinical data to support the modification of the already-approved drug product.
In
addition, a 505(b)(2) NDA requires the applicant to certify as to any patents that claim the drug for which a claim of patent infringement
could be made. In certain cases, the applicant of the NDA with a patent certification must provide notice to the patent holder, which
can lead to a patent infringement lawsuit, thereby delaying the FDA approval of the competitor product for up to 30 months, separate
from any traditional patent infringement litigation delay. Similarly, if the competitor has its own market exclusivity, this can delay
approval of the product. However, if a product obtains exclusivity or patent protection, it can delay entry of competitors for several
years.
Pediatric
Information
Under
the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data 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 drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data.
We plan to test AD04 in adolescent patients (ages 12-17) as part of our next Phase 3 trial. If successful, we intend to request labeling
for treating adolescent patients.
Fraud
and Abuse and Other Healthcare Regulation
We
are subject to various federal and state healthcare laws, including, but not limited to, anti-kickback laws. Penalties for violations
of these healthcare laws include, but are not limited to, criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement,
individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs, and the curtailment
or restructuring of operations.
Anti-Kickback
Statute
The
federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any
remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an
individual, or the furnishing, arranging for or recommending a good or service, or for the purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging
for or recommending, any good, facility, service or item for which payment may be made in whole or in part under federal healthcare programs,
such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and prohibits many arrangements and practices
that are lawful in businesses outside of the healthcare industry. The term “remuneration” expressly includes kickbacks, bribes,
or rebates and also has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, meals, entertainment,
the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing
anything at less than its fair market value.
There
are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain business arrangements from prosecution under the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute. These statutory exceptions and safe harbors set forth provisions that, if all their applicable requirements
are met, will assure healthcare providers and other parties that they may not be prosecuted under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit precisely within one or more applicable statutory exceptions or safe harbors does
not necessarily mean that it is per se illegal or that prosecution will be pursued. However, conduct and business arrangements
that do not fully satisfy all requirements of an applicable safe harbor may result in increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities
and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Additionally, the intent
standard under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended under the Affordable Care Act, to a stricter standard such that a person
or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
The Affordable Care Act provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act, which is
discussed below.
Federal
Civil False Claims Act
The
federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly presenting or causing to be presented
a false or fraudulent claim to, or the knowing use of false statements to obtain payment from or approval by, the federal government.
Suits filed under the federal civil False Claims Act, known as “qui tam” actions, can be brought by any individual on behalf
of the government. These individuals, sometimes known as “relators” or, more commonly, as “whistleblowers”, may
share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. The number of filings of qui tam actions has increased
significantly in recent years, causing more healthcare companies to have to defend a case brought under the federal civil False Claim
Act. If an entity is determined to have violated the federal civil False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the
actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties for each separate false claim. Many comparable state laws are broader
in scope and apply to all payors, and therefore, are not limited to only those claims submitted to the federal government.
Federal
Physician Self-Referral Prohibition
We
may also be subject to the federal physician self-referral prohibitions, commonly known as the Stark Law, which prohibits, among other
things, physicians who have a financial relationship, including an investment, ownership or compensation relationship with an entity,
from referring Medicare and Medicaid patients for designated health services (which include clinical laboratory services) to such entity,
unless an exception applies. Similarly, entities may not bill Medicare, Medicaid or any other party for services furnished pursuant to
a prohibited referral. Many states have their own self-referral laws as well, which in some cases apply to all third-party payors, not
just Medicare and Medicaid.
Federal
Civil Monetary Penalties Statute
The
federal Civil Monetary Penalties Statute, among other things, imposes fines against any person or entity who is determined to have presented,
or caused to be presented, claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows, or should know, is for an item or service that
was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
The
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) created several new federal crimes, including healthcare
fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The healthcare fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a
scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly
and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement
in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.
In
addition, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their
implementing regulations established uniform standards for certain covered entities, which are healthcare providers, health plans and
healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their business associates, governing the conduct of specified electronic healthcare transactions
and protecting the security and privacy of protected health information. Among other things, HITECH also created four new tiers of civil
monetary penalties 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.
The
Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act
The
federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment
is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with certain exceptions, to report annually to
CMS, information related to “payments or other transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists,
optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests
held by physicians, as defined above, and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required
information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties of up to
an aggregate of $150,000 per year and up to an aggregate of $1.0 million per year for “knowing failures.”
State
Law Equivalents
Many
states have also adopted laws similar to each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may be broader
in scope and apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, as well as laws that restrict
our marketing activities with health care professionals and entities, and require us to track and report payments and other transfers
of value, including consulting fees, provided to certain healthcare professionals and entities. Some states mandate implementation of
compliance programs to ensure compliance with these laws. We also are subject to foreign fraud and abuse laws, which vary by country.
Healthcare
Reform
In
March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), which has the potential to substantially change healthcare financing and delivery
by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impact the drug and medical device industries. The ACA will impact existing
government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs.
In
addition, the ACA and its implementing regulations, among other things, revised the methodology for calculation of rebates owed by manufacturers
to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs and certain biologics, including AD04 or any future product candidates,
under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate
Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations,
subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that
increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United
States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures
for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction
of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s
automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per
fiscal year. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “ATRA”) which
delayed for another two months the budget cuts mandated by these sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. In March
2013, the President signed an executive order implementing sequestration, and in April 2013, the 2% Medicare payment reductions went into
effect. The ATRA also, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer
treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three
to five years. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IR Act”).
Among other things, the IR Act requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026),
with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases
that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning
in 2025).
In
addition, Congress often uses the Medicare program for pay for legislation. For example, on April 16, 2015, President Obama signed into
law the “Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015” (“MACRA”). MACRA repealed the Medicare sustainable
growth rate formula that had been used to determine payment levels under the Medicare physician fee schedule (“PFS”), and
established a new method to update payments for physicians and other providers paid under the PFS. Congress reduced Medicare payments
for several categories of providers and made changes to Medicare policies to offset the cost of the bill. It is possible that future
legislation and regulations may include Medicare payment reductions or policy changes that result in reduced payments, increased burdens
or increased operating costs.
The
full impact of the ACA, as well as other laws and reform measures that may be proposed and adopted in the future, remains uncertain,
but may continue the downward pressure on medical device pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory
burdens and operating costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations. Efforts to significantly amend or
repeal the ACA continue and if passed could have a significant impact on important aspects of our business including medical device and
drug pricing, Medicare payment reductions or policy changes that result in reduced payments, or increased burdens or operating costs.
The
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment
or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose
of influencing any act or decision of such foreign official in her or her official capacity or to secure any other improper advantage
in order to obtain or retain business. In addition to the antibribery provisions, the FCPA also obligates “issuers,” companies
whose securities are registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or is required to file periodic and other reports with SEC
under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act to comply with the FCPA’s record keeping and internal controls provisions; the accounting
provisions require a listed company to maintain books and records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect all transactions
of the corporation, including international affiliates, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls
to assure management’s control authority, and responsibility over the company’s assets.
Export
Controls and Economic Sanctions
Several
U.S. statutes and regulations regulate the export from the United States of pharmaceutical products. Pursuant to the Export Administration
Regulations, (“EAR”) the export (including re-exports and “deemed exports”) of commercial and “dual-use”
products may require a license or be prohibited. A listing of the types of goods and services controlled for export by the EAR is on
the Commerce Control List (“CCL”), which includes essentially all civilian science, technology, and engineering dual use
items. For products listed on the CCL, a license will be required as a condition to export, unless an exclusion or license exception
applies. Those items not explicitly included on the CCL are included in a broad category known as “EAR99.” Although a license
may not generally be required for EAR99 designated items, a license will be required if the item will be shipped or otherwise transferred
to a comprehensively embargoed country or for a potentially prohibited purpose.
The
Commerce Department’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance and the Treasury Department’s Internal Revenue Service enforce anti-boycott
compliance regulations that prohibit U.S. persons such as the Company from participating directly or indirectly with an economic boycott
that is not recognized by the United States. The regulations include reporting requirements, prohibitions, and tax liabilities that may
be incurred if the Company supports, even inadvertently, an economic boycott in which the U.S. does not participate.
Pursuant
to the Trading With the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and other related statutes, regulations, and Executive
Orders, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), administers and enforces economic and
trade sanctions that prohibit or restrict certain activities with embargoed countries, sanctioned entities, and sanctioned individuals
for particular foreign policy and national security reasons. The scope of the sanctions varies significantly, but may include comprehensive
restrictions on imports, exports, investment, and facilitation of foreign transactions involving a sanctioned jurisdiction, entity or
person, as well as non-sanctioned persons and entities acting on behalf of sanctioned jurisdictions, entities or people. OFAC’s
programs also prohibit U.S. persons, such as the Company, from transacting with any person or entity that is deemed to be a Foreign Sanctions
Evader (foreign individuals and entities determined to have violated, attempted to violate, conspired to violate, or caused a violation
of U.S. sanctions).
Other
U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Department of State, may maintain regulations that impact the Company’s ability to
export pharmaceutical products from the United States. These broad range of U.S. export control laws and regulations obligate U.S. businesses
to develop, maintain, and enforce an adequate system of internal controls to ensure compliance with such laws and regulations.
Implications
of Being an Emerging Growth Company
We
are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”),
and therefore we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various public company reporting requirements, including not being
required to have our internal controls over financial reporting audited by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant
to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive
compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote
on executive compensation and any golden parachute payments. We may take advantage of these exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging
growth company.” In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” can delay adopting new or revised
accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to use the extended transition period
for complying with new or revised accounting standards under the JOBS Act. This election allows us to delay the adoption of new or revised
accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies.
As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates.
We will remain an “emerging growth company” until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year: (a) following the fifth
anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering; (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion;
or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates
exceeded $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible
debt during the prior three-year period. References herein to “emerging growth company” have the meaning associated with
that term in the JOBS Act.
Corporate
Information
ADial
Pharmaceuticals, L.L.C. was formed as a Virginia limited liability company in November 2010. ADial Pharmaceuticals, L.L.C. converted
from a Virginia limited liability company into a Virginia corporation on October 3, 2017, and then reincorporated in Delaware on October
11, 2017 by merging the Virginia corporation with and into Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was incorporated
on October 5, 2017 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Virginia corporation. We refer to this as the corporate conversion/reincorporation.
In connection with the corporate conversion/reincorporation, each unit of ADial Pharmaceuticals, L.L.C. was converted into shares of
common stock of the Virginia corporation and then into shares of common stock of Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the members of ADial Pharmaceuticals,
L.L.C. became stockholders of Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. succeeded to the business of ADial Pharmaceuticals,
L.L.C.
Purnovate,
LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, was formed as a Virginia limited liability company in April 2019. Purnovate, LLC converted from a Virginia
limited liability company into a Virginia corporation on January 18, 2021, and reincorporated in Delaware on January 26, 2021 by merging
the Virginia corporation with and into Purnovate, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was incorporated on January 20, 2021 and as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Adial”).
Our
principal executive offices are located at 1180 Seminole Trail, Suite 495, Charlottesville VA 22901, and our telephone number is (434)
422-9800. Our website address is www.adialpharma.com. Information contained in our website does not form part of this Annual Report
on Form 10-K and is intended for informational purposes only. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) maintains an
internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically
with the SEC. The address of that website is www.sec.gov.
This
Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience,
trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear
without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to
the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We
do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or
sponsorship of us by, any other companies.
Human
Capital/Employees
As
of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have twenty employees, of which sixteen are full-time employees, one is a three-quarters
time employee, and three are variable hourly employees. Eleven of our employees, including all the variable hourly rate employees, direct
their efforts to Purnovate business, the remainder direct their efforts to the combined business. Our Chief Medical Officer is a consultant
that devotes 75% of his working time to providing services to us. None of our employees is represented by a labor union, and we consider
our relationship with our employees to be good.
We
believe our relationships with our employees are satisfactory. We anticipate that we will need to identify, attract, train and retain
other highly skilled personnel to pursue our development program. Hiring for such personnel is competitive, and there can be no assurance
that we will be able to retain our key employees or attract, assimilate or retain the qualified personnel necessary for the development
of our business.
We
have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with
our employees to be good. Although, management continually seeks to add additional talent to its work force, management believes that
it has sufficient human capital to operate its business successfully.
Competitive
Pay and Benefits. Our compensation programs are designed to align the compensation of our employees with our performance and to provide
the proper incentives to attract, retain and motivate employees to achieve superior results. The structure of our compensation programs
balances incentive earnings for both short-term and long-term performance. Specifically:
| ● | We
provide employee wages that are competitive and consistent with employee positions, skill levels, experience, knowledge and geographic
location. |
| ● | Annual
increases and incentive compensation are based on merit, which is communicated to employees at the time of hiring and documented through
our talent management process as part of our annual review procedures and upon internal transfer and/or promotion. |
| ● | All
full-time employees are eligible for health insurance, paid and unpaid leaves, a 401K retirement plan with employer matching contributions
(maximum of 4% match), and life insurance coverage. We also offer a variety of voluntary benefits that allow employees to select the
options that meet their needs, including flexible time-off, telemedicine, and paid parental leave. |
Description
of Property
On
March 1, 2020, the Company entered into a sublease with Purnovate for the lease of three offices at 1180 Seminole Trail, Suite 495, Charlottesville,
VA 22901. The sublease had a term of two years, and the monthly rent was $1,400. On January 25, 2021, the Company acquired Purnovate
as a wholly owned subsidiary. After the acquisition, the Company directly or through Purnovate operates a chemistry and analytics laboratory
in its 4,175 square feet leased laboratory and office space (the “Facility”). On January 6, 2020, Purnovate entered a lease
for the Facility with a term of three (3) years. Included in the lease was the use of certain laboratory instrumentation and certain
chemical assets. On January 19, 2021, Purnovate entered an amendment to this lease extending the lease until January 31, 2026, committing
us to total lease payments in the period from January 1, 2022 and the end of the lease of $302,492.
Other
company personnel work remotely.
Prior
to the entry into our current sublease, we occupied approximately 250 square feet of office space located at 1001 Research Park Blvd.,
Suite 100, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911. This office service agreement has been terminated.
Legal
Proceedings
We
are subject to claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business from time to time. However, we are not currently
subject to any claims or actions that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
Item
1A. Risk Factors.
Investing
in our securities involves a high degree of risk. In addition to the risks related to our business set forth in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K and the other information included and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, you should carefully consider
the risks described below before purchasing our securities. Additional risks, uncertainties and other factors not presently known to
us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations.
Risks
Relating to Our Company
We
have incurred net losses every year and quarter since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses in the future.
We
are a clinical stage biotechnology pharmaceutical company that is focused on the discovery and development of medications for the treatment
of addictions and related disorders of AUD in patients with certain targeted genotypes. We have a limited operating history. Investment
in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant
risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval
and become commercially viable. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales
to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. To date,
we have not generated positive cash flow from operations, revenues, or profitable operations, nor do we expect to in the foreseeable
future. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $63.7 million.
Even
if we succeed in commercializing our product candidate or any future product candidates, we expect that the commercialization of our
product will not begin until 2025 or later, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to
develop and market additional product candidates and will continue to incur substantial losses and negative operating cash flow. We may
encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business.
The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue.
Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and
working capital.
Our
independent registered public accounting firm has expressed doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
The
report of our independent registered public accounting firm contains a note stating that the accompanying financial statements have been
prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern. During the year ended December 31, 2022, we incurred a net loss of $12,729,726
and used cash in operations of $11,185,985. Losses have principally occurred as a result of the research and development efforts coupled
with no operating revenue. Until we begin generating revenue, there is a doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
We
currently have no product revenues and may not generate revenue at any time in the near future, if at all. Currently, we have no products
approved for commercial sale.
We
currently have no products for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have any drug products approved for sale. We and our product
candidate are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries governing, among other
things, research, testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, labeling, promotion, marketing, adverse event reporting and recordkeeping
of our product candidates. Until, and unless, we receive approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities for our product candidates,
we cannot commercialize product candidates and will not have product revenues. Even if we successfully develop products, achieve regulatory
approval, and then commercialize our products, we may be unable to generate revenue for many years, if at all. We do not anticipate that
we will generate revenue for at least several years, if at all. If we are unable to generate revenue, we will not become profitable,
and we may be unable to continue our operations. For the foreseeable future, we will have to fund all of our operations from equity and
debt offerings, cash on hand and grants. In addition, changes may occur that would consume our available capital at a faster pace than
expected, including changes in and progress of our development activities, acquisitions of additional candidates and changes in regulation.
Moreover, preclinical and clinical testing may not start or be completed as we forecast and may not achieve the desired results. Therefore,
we expect to seek additional sources of funding, such as additional financing, grant funding or partner or collaborator funding, which
additional sources of funding may not be available on favorable terms, if at all.
We
have had limited operations to date and there can be no assurance that we will be able to execute on our business strategy.
We
are a clinical stage company and have had limited operations to date. We have yet to demonstrate our ability to overcome the risks frequently
encountered in our industry and are still subject to many of the risks common to such enterprises, including our ability to implement
our business plan, market acceptance of our proposed business and lead product, under-capitalization, cash shortages, limitations with
respect to personnel, financing and other resources, competition from better funded and experienced companies, and uncertainty of our
ability to generate revenues. In fact, though individual team members have experience running clinical trials, as a company we have yet
to prove that we can successfully run a clinical trial to the point of releasing data. There is no assurance that our activities will
be successful or will result in any revenues or profit, and the likelihood of our success must be considered in light of the stage of
our development. In addition, no assurance can be given that we will be able to consummate our business strategy and plans, or that financial,
technological, market, or other limitations may force us to modify, alter, significantly delay, or significantly impede the implementation
of such plans. We have insufficient results for investors to use to identify historical trends. Investors should consider our prospects
in light of the risk, expenses and difficulties we will encounter as an early stage company. Our revenue and income potential is unproven
and our business model is continually evolving. We are subject to the risks inherent to the operation of a new business enterprise, and
cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully address these risks.
We
will need to secure additional financing in order to support our operations and fund our current and future clinical trials. We can provide
no assurances that any additional sources of financing will be available to us on favorable terms, if at all. Our forecast of the period
of time through which our current financial resources will be adequate to support our operations and the costs to support our general
and administrative, selling and marketing and research and development activities are forward-looking statements and involve risks and
uncertainties.
If we do not succeed in raising additional funds
on acceptable terms, we may be unable to complete planned product development activities or obtain approval of our product candidate from
the FDA and other regulatory authorities. We do not have any committed sources of capital. Moreover, if our future trial activities are
significantly delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic or the unrest in Eastern Europe, our project cost and operating overhead costs may
significantly increase. In addition, if the assets of Purnovate are not sold pursuant to the Option Agreement and we are required to develop
those assets our expenses will increase and we will require additional funding. In such case, we would need to obtain additional funding,
either through other grants or through potentially dilutive means. In any case, we will need to raise additional capital to complete our
development program and to meet our long-term business objectives.
Our cash and cash equivalents at the date of this Annual Report filing
on Form 10-K are not expected to be sufficient to fund our operations for the next twelve months. Given current expectations, we will
require additional financing as we continue to execute our business strategy. We will require additional funds in order to continue operations
and for additional Phase 3 trials of AD04, if needed, as well as any additional clinical trials or other development of any products we
may acquire or license, including those acquired from Purnovate. Our liquidity may be negatively impacted as a result of a research and
development cost increases in addition to general economic and industry factors. We anticipate that, to the extent that we require additional
liquidity, it will be funded through the incurrence of other indebtedness, additional equity financings or a combination of these potential
sources of liquidity. In addition, we may raise additional funds to finance future cash needs through grant funding and/or corporate collaboration
and licensing arrangements. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities or convertible debt, our stockholders will experience
dilution. Debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants
limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring
dividends. We are in discussions with potential partners that could fund a Phase 3 clinical program, if required and/or commercialization
of AD04, assuming a successful regulatory outcome; however, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in attracting such a
partner. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish
valuable rights to our products, future revenue streams or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable
to us. The covenants under future credit facilities may limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing. We cannot be certain that
additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Any failure to raise capital in the future could have a negative
impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategies.
Additional
financing, which is not in place at this time, may be from the sale of equity or convertible or other debt securities in a public or
private offering, from a credit facility or strategic partnership coupled with an investment in us or a combination of both. Our ability
to raise capital through the sale of equity may be limited by the various rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”)
and The Nasdaq Capital Market (the “Nasdaq”), which place limits on the number of shares of stock that may be sold. Equity
issuances would have a dilutive effect on our stockholders. We may be unable to raise sufficient additional financing on terms that are
acceptable to us, if at all. Our failure to raise additional capital and in sufficient amounts may significantly impact our ability to
expand our business. For further discussion of our liquidity requirements as they relate to our long-term plans, see the section entitled
“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”
We
have identified material weaknesses in our internal controls, and we cannot provide assurances that these weaknesses will be effectively
remediated or that additional material weaknesses will not occur in the future.
As
a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We expect that the requirements
of these rules and regulations will continue to increase our legal, accounting and financial compliance costs, make some activities more
difficult, time consuming and costly, and place significant strain on our personnel, systems and resources.
The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls
over financial reporting.
We
do not yet have effective disclosure controls and procedures, or internal controls over all aspects of our financial reporting. We are
continuing to develop and refine our internal controls over financial reporting. Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over our financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. We will be required to expend
time and resources to further improve our internal controls over financial reporting, including by expanding our staff. However, we cannot
assure you that our internal control over financial reporting, as modified, will enable us to identify or avoid material weaknesses in
the future.
We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over
financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting
such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected
on a timely basis. The material weaknesses identified to date include (i) lack of formal risk assessment under COSO framework (ii) policies
and procedures which are not adequately documented, (iii) lack of proper approval processes, review processes and documentation for such
reviews, (iv) insufficient GAAP experience regarding complex transactions and ineffective review processes over period end financial disclosure
and reporting (v) deficiencies in the risk assessment, design and policies and procedures over information technology (“IT”)
general controls, and (vi) insufficient segregation of duties.
We
will be required to expend time and resources to further improve our internal controls over financial reporting, including by expanding
our staff. However, we cannot assure you that our internal control over financial reporting, as modified, will enable us to identify
or avoid material weaknesses in the future.
Our
current controls and any new controls that we develop may become inadequate because of changes in conditions in our business, including
increased complexity resulting from our international expansion. Further, weaknesses in our disclosure controls or our internal control
over financial reporting may be discovered in the future. Any failure to develop or maintain effective controls, or any difficulties
encountered in their implementation or improvement, could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations
and may result in a restatement of our financial statements for prior periods. Any failure to implement and maintain effective internal
control over financial reporting could also adversely affect the results of management reports and independent registered public accounting
firm audits of our internal control over financial reporting that we will eventually be required to include in our periodic reports that
will be filed with the SEC. Ineffective disclosure controls and procedures, and internal control over financial reporting could also
cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial and other information, which would likely have a negative effect on the
market price of our common stock.
Our
independent registered public accounting firm is not required to audit the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
until after we are no longer an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act and meet other requirements. At such
time, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue a report that is adverse in the event it is not satisfied with the
level at which our internal control over financial reporting is documented, designed or operating. Any failure to maintain effective
disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting could have a material and adverse effect on our business and operating
results, and cause a decline in the market price of our common stock.
We
rely on a license to use various technologies that are material to our business and if the agreement were to be terminated or if other
rights that may be necessary or we deem advisable for commercializing our intended products cannot be obtained, it would halt our ability
to market our products and technology, as well as have an immediate material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial
condition.
Our
prospects are significantly dependent upon the UVA LVG License. The UVA LVG License grants us exclusive, worldwide rights to certain
existing patents and related intellectual property that covers AD04, our lead and currently only product candidate. If we breach the
terms of the UVA LVG License, including any failure to make minimum royalty payments required thereunder or failure to reach certain
developmental milestones and completion of deadlines, including, submitting an NDA by December 31, 2024 and commencing commercialization
of an FDA approved product by December 31, 2025, or other factors, including but not limited to, the failure to comply with material
terms of the Agreement, the licensor has the right to terminate the license. If we were to lose or otherwise be unable to maintain this
license on acceptable terms, or find that it is necessary or appropriate to secure new licenses from other third parties, we would not
be able to market our products and technology, which would likely require us to cease our current operations which would have an immediate
material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
Our
business is dependent upon the success of our lead product candidate, AD04, which requires significant additional clinical testing before
we can seek regulatory approval and potentially launch commercial sales.
Our business and future success depends upon our
ability to obtain regulatory approval of and then successfully commercialize our lead investigational product candidate, AD04 and other
product candidates. AD04 is in clinical stage development. To date, our main focus and the investment of a significant portion of our
efforts and financial resources has been in the development of our lead investigational product candidate, AD04, for which we recently
completed the ONWARD Phase 3 clinical trial with 302 patients in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe, which targets the reduction
of risk drinking (heavy drinking of alcohol) in subjects that possess selected genetics of the serotonin transporter and/or 5-HT3 receptor
gene. We expect that at least one additional Phase 3 clinical trial will be required for approval, as well as, one or more supportive
clinical studies Even though we are pursuing a registration pathway based on specific FDA input and guidance and the EMA precedents and
guidance, there are many uncertainties known and unknown that may affect the outcome of the trial. These include adequate patient enrollment,
adequate supply of our product candidate, potential changes in the regulatory landscape, and the results of the trial being successful.
All
of our future product candidates, as well as AD04, will require additional clinical and non-clinical development, regulatory review and
approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing
efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. We expect AD04 will need at least two Phase 3 trials (including the ONWARD
Phase 3 trial we recently completed in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe) and one or more supportive clinical studies to gain
approval in either the U.S. or Europe for AUD and additional development activity, including, without limitation, clinical trials, in
order to seek approval for the use of AD04 to treat any other indications (e.g., such as opioid use disorder, gambling addiction, smoking
cessation, and other drug addictions). In addition, because AD04 is our most advanced product candidate and there is limited history
information on long-term effects of our proposed dosage, there is always a chance of developmental delays or regulatory issues or other
problems arising, with our development plans and depending on their magnitude, our business could be significantly harmed. In any case,
the costs associated with completion of our ONWARD Phase 3 trial, a second, confirmatory trial, commercialization of AD04, and the costs
of developing AD04 for use in other indications are significant, and will require obtaining funding, possibly through equity sales, before
AD04 generates revenue.
Our
future success depends heavily on our ability to successfully manufacture, develop, obtain regulatory approval, and commercialize AD04,
which may never occur. We currently generate no revenues from our product candidate, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize
a marketable drug.
The
active ingredient of our product candidate, ondansetron, is currently available in generic form.
Ondansetron,
the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of AD04, was granted FDA approval as Zofran® in January 1991
and is approved in many foreign markets. Ondansetron is commercially available in generic form, but not available: (i) at the formulation/dosage
levels expected to be marketed by us, or (ii) with a requirement to use a diagnostic biomarker, as we expect to be the case with AD04.
Although ondansetron has been approved to treat nausea and emesis it has not been approved to treat AUD and it has not been approved
for daily long-term use as planned by us. Clinical testing to date of ondansetron at the higher doses used to treat nausea/emesis have
not shown effectiveness in treating AUD or any other addictive disorder; however, if a third party conducted a Phase 3 clinical program
and showed success treating AUD at those doses, we could not prevent such third party from marketing ondansetron for AUD at those doses.
Results
from clinical studies suggest that high intravenous doses of ondansetron may affect the electrical activity of the heart. In a Drug Safety
Communication dated June 29, 2012, the FDA stated that: “A 32 mg single intravenous dose of ondansetron (Zofran, ondansetron hydrochloride,
and generics) may affect the electrical activity of the heart (QT interval prolongation), which could pre-dispose patients to develop
an abnormal and potentially fatal heart rhythm known as Torsades de Pointes.” In addition: “No single intravenous dose should
exceed 16 mg.” There are also several recent lawsuits claiming that Zofran® used for the unapproved use of morning
sickness causes birth defects. Although we do not believe that our dosage will cause such adverse event there can be no assurance that
the negative side effects of the generic drug that have been found in higher dosages will not occur in our dosage or otherwise deter
potential users of our product candidate and adversely impact sales of our product candidate. If we were to be required to have such
a warning on our drug label, patients may be deterred from using our product candidates.
In
addition, we also face the risk, that doctors will prescribe off label, the generic form of ondansetron to treat AUD despite the different
dosage of ondansetron in the generic form from that in AD04, the lack of demonstrated clinical efficacy against AUD at the currently
available doses (i.e., the Zofran ® and approved generics), and the potential safety concerns if the currently available/higher
doses are taken chronically as would be needed for AUD or other addictions. Physicians, or their patients, could divide the lowest dose
existing oral tablet into more than ten parts to approximate the necessary AD04 dosage.
Although
we believe that any attempt by competitors to reformulate and market ondansetron at our intended dosage levels, while technically feasible,
infringes on our intellectual property rights, and should, accordingly, be actionable, we cannot give assurances that we would be successful
in defending our rights or that we will have access to sufficient funds necessary to successfully prosecute any such violations of, or
infringements on, our intellectual property rights. Additionally, we cannot ensure investors that other companies will not discover and
seek to commercialize low doses of ondansetron, not currently available, for other indications.
Changes in general economic conditions,
geopolitical conditions, domestic and foreign trade policies, monetary policies and other factors beyond our control may adversely impact
our business and operating results.
Our operations and performance depend on global,
regional and U.S. economic and geopolitical conditions. General worldwide economic conditions have experienced significant instability
in recent years including the recent global economic uncertainty and financial market conditions. Russia’s invasion and military
attacks on Ukraine have triggered significant sanctions from U.S. and European leaders and financial markets around the world experienced
volatility following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022. Resulting changes in U.S. trade policy could trigger retaliatory
actions by Russia, its allies and other affected countries, including China, resulting in a “trade war.” Furthermore, if other
countries, including the U.S., become further involved in the conflict, we could face significant adverse effects to our business and
financial condition.
The uncertain financial markets,
disruptions in supply chains, mobility restraints, and changing priorities as well as volatile asset values could impact our
business in the future. The COVID-19 outbreak and government measures taken in response to the pandemic have also had a significant
impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred; supply chains have been disrupted;
facilities and production have been suspended; and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies,
have spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, have fallen. The future progression of the pandemic and its
effects on our business and operations are uncertain. In addition, the outbreak of a pandemic could disrupt our operations due
to absenteeism by infected or ill members of management or other employees, or absenteeism by members of management and other
employees who elect not to come to work due to the illness affecting others in our office or laboratory facilities, or due to
quarantines. Pandemics could also impact members of our Board of Directors resulting in absenteeism from meetings of the directors
or committees of directors, and making it more difficult to convene the quorums of the full Board of Directors or its committees
needed to conduct meetings for the management of our affairs.
Further, due to increasing inflation, operating
costs for many businesses including ours have increased and, in the future, could impact demand or pricing manufacturing of our drug candidates
or services providers, foreign exchange rates or employee wages. Inflation rates, particularly in the United States, have increased
recently to levels not seen in years, and increased inflation may result in increases in our operating costs (including our labor costs),
reduced liquidity and limits on our ability to access credit or otherwise raise capital. In addition, the Federal Reserve has raised,
and may again raise, interest rates in response to concerns about inflation, which coupled with reduced government spending and volatility
in financial markets may have the effect of further increasing economic uncertainty and heightening these risks.
Actual events involving reduced or limited liquidity,
defaults, non-performance or other adverse developments that affect financial institutions or other companies in the financial services
industry or the financial services industry generally, or concerns or rumors about any events of these kinds, have in the past and may
in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, was closed by the California
Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. Although
we did not have any cash or cash equivalent balances on deposit with Silicon Valley Bank, uncertainty and liquidity concerns in the broader
financial services industry remain and the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and its potential near- and long-term effects on the biotechnology
industry and its participants such as our vendors, suppliers, and investors, may also adversely affect our operations and stock price.
We are actively monitoring the effects these disruptions
and increasing inflation could have on our operations.
These conditions make it extremely difficult for
us to accurately forecast and plan future business activities.
While there exists a large body of evidence
supporting the safety of our primary API, ondansetron, under short-term use, there are currently no long-term use clinical safety data
available.
We intend to market our products, particularly
AD04, for long-term use by patients seeking to reduce their number of days of heavy drinking, and we assume future sales volumes reflecting
such extended use.
Studies of Zofran ® conducted as
part of its FDA and other regulatory agencies review process found that the drug is well-tolerated and results in few adverse side effects
at dosages almost 100 times the dosage expected to be formulated in AD04. However, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive clinical
study has been performed to date that has evaluated the safety profile of ondansetron for long-term use. We expect the FDA will require
us to provide safety data in at least 100 patients for 12 months and can offer no assurances that safety results of these long term use
studies will lead to any subsequent approval for long-term use. There can be no assurance that long-term usage of ondansetron, at dosages
anticipated by us, will be safe. Though the FDA has stated it will not require additional non-clinical testing nor will it require a QT
interval prolongation clinical study, such statements by the FDA are not legally binding on the agency.
All of our current data for our lead product
candidate are the result of Phase 2 clinical trials conducted by third parties and do not necessarily provide sufficient evidence that
our products are viable as potential pharmaceutical products.
Through our proprietary access to relevant laboratory
and clinical trial results of the University of Virginia’s research program, and through our reliance on publicly available third-party
research, we possess toxicology, pharmacokinetic, and other preclinical data and clinical data on AD04. As of now, AD04 has completed
only Phase 2 clinical trials and we are now completing our first Phase 3 trial. There is no guarantee that Phase 2 results can or will
be replicated by pivotal Phase 3 studies.
To date, long-term safety and efficacy have not
yet been demonstrated in clinical trials for our investigational product candidate. Favorable results in early studies or trials may not
be repeated in later studies or trials. Even if our clinical trials are initiated and completed as planned, we cannot be certain that
the results will support our product candidate claims. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later
clinical trials will be successful. We cannot be sure that the results of later clinical trials would replicate the results of prior clinical
trials and preclinical testing, nor that they would satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other regulatory agencies. Clinical trials
may fail to demonstrate that our product candidate is safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. Preclinical and clinical results
are frequently susceptible to varying interpretations that may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals or commercialization. Any
delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials would delay our obtaining FDA or EMA approval for the affected product candidate and,
ultimately, our ability to commercialize that product candidate.
Previous clinical trials using ondansetron have
had different trial designs, doses, parameters and endpoints than the current ONWARD Phase 3 clinical trial that is expected to serve
as a basis for approval of AD04. Though various doses of ondansetron have been tested as treatments for alcohol addiction (Johnson, BA
et al., 2011; Johnson, BA et al., 2000; Kranzler et al, 2003; Sellers, EM et al., 1994), the 283-patient Phase 2b clinical trial on which
we are largely basing our clinical expectations only tested one dosing regimen, which was weight-based (Johnson, BA et al., 2011). We
plan to use a fixed dose in future clinical trials that we believe provides good coverage given the dose ranges tested clinically; however,
it is possible that the dose selected will not be the optimal dose and so drug effects may be limited or not be demonstrated sufficiently
in clinical testing. Additionally, only one genotype in the genetic panel that will be used to define patients that are genotype positive
for treatment with AD04 was used in primary analyses of the Phase 2b trial and three of the genotypes were added to the panel after a
retrospective exploratory analysis of the Phase 2b data. The genotype in the panel related to the 5-HTT, that was included in the primary
analysis (Johnson, BA et al., 2011) appears to make up about half of the patients that are genotype positive. The three genotypes related
to modulation of the 5-HT3 receptor were selected based on a retrospective analysis that was constrained to 18 single-nucleotide polymorphism
(“SNPs”) identified for analysis (Johnson, BA et al., 2013). Therefore, confidence in the effects of the 5-HT3 genetics is
less than that for the 5-HTT genetics, and this could negatively impact the treatment effect of AD04 in Phase 3 trials for a segment of
the patients identified as genotype positive, which could dilute the overall demonstrated effect of AD04 in the trial.
The endpoints for the Phase 2b clinical trial
of AD04 were reduction in the severity of drinking, measured as drinks per day of drinking alcohol and reduction frequency of drinking,
measured by days of total abstinence from alcohol. These are surrogate endpoints for the endpoints expected to be required for approval,
which, for Europe, are expected to be reduction of heavy drinking days (defined herein), measured in percentage of heavy drinking days
per month, and total average alcohol consumed per month, and, for the United States, is expected to be the percentage of patients that
have no heavy drinking days in the final 2 months of a six month treatment regimen of AD04. Though the Phase 2b trial showed a statistically
significant effect against both pre-specified endpoints and when analyzed for reducing heavy drinking days, all when compared against
the placebo group, it is possible that AD04 could affect the endpoints of the Phase 2b trial while not demonstrating a strong enough effect
to gain approval.
The Phase 2b clinical trial was 12 weeks in duration,
including a one week placebo run-in period, and the Phase 3 trials expected to be required for approval will be 24 weeks. Though the effect
of AD04 against AUD in the Phase 2b trial appeared to begin in the first month of the trial and appeared durable throughout the trial,
we cannot be sure the effect will extend for the duration of the Phase 3 trials.
The FDA and/or EMA may not accept our planned
Phase 3 endpoints for final approval of AD04 and may determine additional clinical trials are required for approval of AD04.
The FDA has indicated to us that a comparison
of the percent of patients with no heavy drinking days in the last two months of a six month clinical trial between the drug and placebo
groups will be a satisfactory endpoint for determination of a successful Phase 3 trial of AD04 and has published the draft guidance Alcoholism:
Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry dated February 2015 indicating this endpoint for the development of drugs for
AUD. Similarly, the EMA has in the past accepted the co-primary endpoints of reduction from baseline in days of heavy drinking and reduction
total grams of alcohol consumed per month and has published the Guideline on the development of medicinal products for the treatment
of alcohol dependence on February 18, 2010 stating these endpoints as approvable endpoints for alcohol addiction treatment. Despite
these indications, neither the FDA nor the EMA is bound to accept the stated endpoint if a new drug application for AD04 is submitted
and their definitions of a heavy drinking day may change. We, however, can offer no assurance that the FDA or EMA will approve our primary
endpoints, that we can achieve success at the any endpoints they do approve, or that these potential benefits will subsequently be realized.
We will incur additional costs and our approvals
could be delayed if the FDA or EMA requires additional clinical trials in patients that are negative for the genotypes targeted by AD04.
In addition, clinical trials conducted with only genotype positive subjects will likely result in labeling restricted to treating patients
that are genotype positive.
Although the FDA has indicated that it sees little
evidence of positive effects for the use of AD04 in subjects that are negative for the genotypes targeted by AD04 and has stated that
it would not object to the AD04 Phase 3 clinical trials going forward without including these additional subjects, the FDA has indicated
that some research in this area may be required prior to approval of AD04 for AUD within the marker negative population. We believe the
data supports our hypothesis that no further studies in genotype negative patients need be conducted. However, the FDA has indicated that
any approval based on a trial only in genotype positive subjects would result in labeling restricted to treating patients that are genotype
positive. If further studies are required, we will incur additional costs not anticipated, and it could delay approval of AD04 or, if
the results of such studies are not positive for AD04, it may result in AD04 not being approved or it may result in AD04’s patents
failing to protect AD04 against generic competition.
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”),
NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data 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 drug is safe and effective.
We plan to test AD04 in adolescent patients (ages 12-17) as part of our next Phase 3 trial. If successful, we intend to request labeling
for treating adolescent patients.
Our use of the currently manufactured clinical
trial material in the plan Phase 3 trial is dependent upon the review and approval of the relevant regulatory agencies and authorities.
The Company has manufactured additional clinical
trial material for use in the ONWARD trial and other studies that may be required by the FDA or EMA. No assurance can be given that the
CMC plan developed by us will be satisfactory to the regulatory agencies or that the clinical trial material produced for use in clinical
trials of AD04 will be approved for use in the trials, either of which could result in delay of the clinical trial program and a requirement
for increased investment prior to commencement of clinical trials.
Our lead investigational product, AD04,
is dependent on a successful development, approval, and commercialization of a genetic test, which is expected to be classified as a companion
diagnostic.
Treatment with AD04 will be dependent on identification
of patients with a genetic test (i.e., a companion diagnostic). Companion diagnostics and complementary diagnostics are regulated as medical
devices by the FDA and, as such, require either clearance or approval prior to commercialization. While the technology for the test we
plan to use is well established, it cannot be certain the testing laboratory we set up will be able to conduct the test with the selectivity
and sensitivity that will be required or that the genetic test will be approved by FDA for such use, which could increase the time and
cost to develop AD04 and possibly prevent marketing approval. While we have been party to a joint meeting with the Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (“CDER”, the FDA division responsible for drug approvals) and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health
(“CDRH”, the FDA division responsible for device approvals, including genetic tests) at which agreement was reached as to
the development path for the genetic test, neither CDER nor CDRH is bound to accept our planned submission package even if the data is
positive. We expect to need approval of a PMA or a 510(k) from CDRH for the companion diagnostics to be used with the drug product. We
are collecting and storing additional blood samples from all patients enrolled in the ONWARD Phase 3 trial, and plan to do so for any
future trials that may be conducted, in the event of any difficulties, however, we cannot be certain we can overcome all of the technological,
logistical or regulatory hurdles related to the genetic testing, which include, without limitation, technical validation of the test (e.g.
specificity, sensitivity, reproducibility, robustness of methods), clinical validation acceptable to CDER and CDRH, all of which are needed
for approval of AD04 and its companion diagnostic genetic test. Failure in any of these areas could delay approval of AD04, increase the
cost necessary to achieve approval of AD04 or prevent approval of AD04.
If we obtain approval of AD04 and its genetic
test, we currently plan to distribute the genetic test as widely as possible to third party testing companies with limited attention to
capitalizing on the revenue potential of the genetic test itself in order to achieve wider availability of the genetic test to drive market
uptake of AD04. However, we cannot be sure that third party testing companies will be willing to provide the test, that reimbursement
for the test will be available to make such business profitable, or that taking a genetic test will be acceptable to patients or physicians.
Additionally, our plans may change so that we attempt to make the test a material business of our own. In this event, the availability
of the genetic test in the market could be reduced, limiting market uptake of AD04, the testing business could fail, and we could be in
a position where it never reaches profitability. As one of our products/services, the genetic test will be subject to all of the risks
stated elsewhere herein related to reimbursement of our products and failure to achieve adequate reimbursement could limit the potential
sales of both the genetic test and AD04, and there is no assurance that the diagnostic will be approved or authorized for marketing.
Our product candidate will require extensive
clinical and other testing.
Our product candidate will require extensive clinical
and other testing. Although our lead product candidate has completed a 283-patient Phase 2b clinical trial and has completed its first
Phase 3 clinical trial, we anticipate that we will be required to complete a second Phase 3 clinical trial in order to obtain regulatory
approval and therefore cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit an application for regulatory approval for any of
our product candidates or whether any such application will be accepted for review by the FDA or EMA, or whether any application will
be approved upon review.
Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned,
we cannot be certain that their results will support our proposed indications. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials
does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the results of later clinical trials will replicate
the results of prior clinical trials and preclinical testing. Results from earlier clinical trials may not be repeated in later clinical
trials. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidate is safe and effective for their proposed uses. This
failure could cause us to abandon our product candidate and may delay development of other product candidates. Any delay in, or termination
of, our clinical trials will delay and possibly preclude the filing of any NDAs with the FDA or EMA and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize
our product candidate and generate product revenues.
Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate
adequately the safety and efficacy of AD04 or any future product candidates, which would likely prevent or delay regulatory approval and
commercialization.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the
commercial sale of AD04 or any future product candidates, including AD04, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical
testing and clinical trials that product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing 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. The results of preclinical studies and early and even later stage clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive
of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Results from subsequent clinical trials may not be the same as the results from the Phase
2b clinical trial that was conducted by the University of Virginia of the results of our Phase 3 trial. There is typically an extremely
high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of
clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial
clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials
due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. We can make no assurances
that, should our Phase 3 studies provide statistically significant and clinical meaningful results evidencing that treatment with AD04
results in reduced days of heavy drinking or abstinence, these same results will also provide evidence of greater patient efficacy rates
and or patient benefit ratios vis-à-vis currently marketed drug treatments. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials
are never approved as products.
In addition, even if the trials are successfully
completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could
be required before we submit product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the
FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of product candidates may be significantly delayed,
or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support
of potential approval of product candidates.
If we experience delays in the enrollment
of patients in our clinical trials our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.
We anticipate that we will be required to complete
a second Phase 3 clinical trial in order to obtain regulatory approval and therefore our inability to locate and continue to enroll a
sufficient number of eligible patients in any future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one
or more clinical trials. Retention of subjects in clinical trials related to AUD can be challenging relative to trials in some other indications
due to the nature of the target population. In addition, COVID-19 has made trial operation, including, without limitation, patient enrollment,
more difficult and more difficult to project. In addition, since we expect that many of our future clinical trial sites will again be
located in Eastern Europe, our ability to enroll patients may be adversely impacted by the turmoil in Eastern Europe. Our ability to enroll
patients in trials is affected by many factors out of our control including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity
of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, the prevalence and successful
recruiting of patients that are genotype positive, competing clinical trials, and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as
to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved
for the indications we are investigating. Due to the use of a biomarker to determine enrollment in our current and planned Phase 3 clinical
trials, we will have a limited population of patients to draw from for our Phase 3 clinical trials.
Global health crises may adversely affect
our planned operations.
The conduct of anticipated second ONWARD Phase
3 trial could be materially and adversely affected by the risks, or the public perception of the risks, related to a pandemic or other
health crisis, such as the recent outbreak of novel coronavirus (COVID-19). A significant outbreak of contagious diseases in the human
population could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect our ongoing trial. Such events could result in the complete
or partial closure of one or more of our critical vendors. In addition, an outbreak near our clinical trial site locations would likely
impact our ability to recruit patients, delay our clinical trials, and could affect our ability to complete our clinical trials within
the planned time periods. Also, public health authorities in the jurisdictions in which our trial is taking place may take steps that
would result in significant delay in our trial activities.
Our success will be dependent upon adoption
by physicians and others.
Even if the FDA and/or EMA approves our product
candidate or any future product candidates we may develop or acquire, the product will require acceptance among physicians, healthcare
payers, patients, and the medical community. Our products are to be used in combination with a genetic test targeted at patients with
certain specified genotypes. It is anticipated that physicians will recommend patients for screening prior to administration of AD04 or
future product candidates. Therefore, our business will be substantially dependent upon our ability to communicate with and obtain support
from physicians regarding the benefits of our products relative to alternative treatments available at that time.
Rapid technological change and substantial
competition may impair the business.
The pharmaceutical industry is subject to rapid
and substantial technological change. Technological competition in the industry from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities,
governmental entities, and others diversifying into the field is intense and is expected to increase. Many of these entities have significantly
greater research and development capabilities, as well as substantially more marketing, financial, and managerial resources than we do,
and represent significant competition. Acquisitions of, or investments in, competing biotechnology companies by large pharmaceutical companies
could increase these competitors’ financial, marketing, and other resources. We cannot assure you that developments by others will
not render our products or technologies noncompetitive or that we will be able to keep pace with technological developments. Competitors
have developed, or are in the process of developing, technologies that are, or in the future may be, the basis for competitive products.
Some of these products may have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing similar therapeutic endpoints than products we
are currently developing. These competing products may be more effective and less costly than the products that we are developing. In
addition, conventional behavioral therapies and other treatment approaches currently in use today may continue to be used instead of,
rather than in conjunction with, our products.
Any product that we successfully develop, and
for which we gain regulatory approval, must compete for market acceptance and market share. Accordingly, important competitive factors,
in addition to completion of clinical testing and the receipt of regulatory approval, will include product efficacy, safety, timing, and
scope of regulatory approvals, availability of supply, marketing and sales capability, reimbursement coverage, pricing, and patent protection.
Existing or future competing products may provide greater therapeutic convenience or clinical or other benefits for a specific indication
than our products, or may offer comparable performance at a lower cost. If our products fail to capture and maintain market share, we
may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.
We will compete against fully integrated pharmaceutical
companies such as Alkermes and Indivior and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions,
government agencies and other public and private research organizations. Many of these competitors have drugs already approved or in development.
In addition, many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development
programs or have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in:
| ● | developing
drugs, and other therapies; |
| ● | undertaking
preclinical testing and clinical trials; |
| ● | obtaining
FDA and other regulatory approvals of drugs, biologics and other therapies; |
| ● | formulating
and manufacturing drugs, biologics and other therapies; and |
| ● | launching,
marketing and selling drugs, and other therapies. |
Risks Relating to Purnovate
Purnovate has had limited operations to date and there is no
assurance that we will be able to sell its assets as planned.
Purnovate is a start-up entity and has had limited
operations to date. As a start-up entity, Purnovate is subject to many of the risks common to such enterprises, including its ability
to implement its business plan, market acceptance of its proposed business and products, under-capitalization, cash shortages, limitations
with respect to personnel, financing and other resources, competition from better funded and experienced companies, and uncertainty of
its ability to generate revenues. There is no assurance that its activities will be successful or will result in any revenues or profit,
and the likelihood of its success must be considered in light of the stage of its development. Even if it generates revenue, there can
be no assurance that it will be profitable. Although we have entered into an agreement to sell the assets of Purnovate, there can be no
assurance that such sale will be consummated. In addition, no assurance can be given that the purchaser of the assets or we, if the assets
are not sold, will be able to consummate Purnovate’s business strategy and plans, as described herein, or that financial, technological,
market, or other limitations may force it to modify, alter, significantly delay, or significantly impede the implementation of such plans.
Purnovate has insufficient results for investors to use to identify historical trends or even to make quarter-to-quarter comparisons of
its operating results and therefore its value is difficult to assess. Purnovate’s revenue and income potential is unproven and its
business model is continually evolving. Purnovate is subject to the risks inherent to the operation of a new business enterprise, and
there can be no assurance that Purnovate will be able to successfully address these risks.
Purnovate has a limited operating history upon which to evaluate
its ability to commercialize its products.
Purnovate is a development-stage company and its
success is dependent upon its ability to develop and commercialize its products and it has not demonstrated an ability to perform the
functions necessary for the successful development and commercialization of any product candidates. The successful commercialization of
any product candidates will require Purnovate to perform a variety of functions, including:
| ● | continuing
to undertake preclinical development trials and initiating clinical trials; |
| ● | participating
in regulatory approval processes and obtaining regulatory approvals; |
| ● | formulating
and manufacturing products; and |
| ● | conducting
sales and marketing activities. |
Purnovate’s operations have been limited
to organizing and staffing Purnovate, acquiring, developing and securing its proprietary technology and undertaking preclinical studies
of its product candidates. Purnovate has yet to engage in any clinical trials and therefore the safety of its product candidates is uncertain.
Purnovate’s product candidates are
in early stages of clinical trials.
Because Purnovate’s product candidates are
in early stages of development they will require extensive preclinical and clinical testing. Purnovate’s lead product has not yet
entered clinical trials and cost, speed and ability to advance through clinical trials is uncertain. Purnovate cannot predict with any
certainty if or when it might submit an application for regulatory approval for any of its product candidates or whether any such application
will be accepted.
Purnovate’s technology may not result
in any successful drug candidates.
Purnovate has developed what it believes are lead
compounds that could be drug candidates. However, despite there being significant literature and in vitro and in
vivo evidence that adenosine analogs may be effective in treating a number of diseases and disorders, the compounds developed
to date have not been extensively tested in vitro and have not been tested in vivo. It is possible that any
and all compounds or product candidates developed by Purnovate or using its technology may fail or be determined not valuable to pursue
as products for a number of reasons, including, without limitation, due to toxicity, lack of efficacy, lack of stability, poor manufacturing
characteristics or otherwise.
There is uncertainty as to market acceptance
of Purnovate’s technology and products.
Purnovate has conducted its own research into
the markets for its products; however, because it will be a new entrant into the market, it cannot guarantee market acceptance of its
products and has somewhat limited information on which to estimate anticipated level of sales. Purnovate’s products will require
patients and doctors to adopt its technology. Purnovate’s industry is susceptible to rapid technological developments and there
can be no assurance that it will be able to match any new technological advances. If it is unable to match the technological changes in
the needs of its customers the demand for its products will be reduced.
Risks Relating to Our Business and Industry
If we do not obtain the necessary regulatory
approvals in the United States and/or other countries, we will not be able to sell our product candidates.
We cannot assure you that we will receive the
approvals necessary to commercialize AD04 or any future product candidates we acquire or develop in the future. We will need FDA approval
to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and approvals from the FDA-equivalent regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions
to commercialize our product candidates in those jurisdictions. In order to obtain FDA approval of any product candidate, we must submit
to the FDA an NDA, demonstrating that the product candidate is safe, pure and potent, and effective for its intended use. This demonstration
requires significant research including preclinical studies, as well as clinical trials. Satisfaction of the FDA’s regulatory requirements
typically takes many years, depends upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate and requires substantial resources
for research, development and testing. We cannot predict whether our clinical trials will demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product
candidates or if the results of any clinical trials will be sufficient to advance to the next phase of development or for approval from
the FDA. We also cannot predict whether our research and clinical approaches will result in drugs or therapeutics that the FDA considers
safe and effective for the proposed indications. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process.
The approval process may be delayed by changes
in government regulation, future legislation or administrative action, or changes in FDA policy that occur prior to or during our regulatory
review. Factors that might lead to a suspension or termination of a clinical trial include, but are not limited to:
| ● | failure
to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with U.S., international and or local regulatory requirements; |
| ● | failure
of medical investigators to follow clinical trial protocols; |
| ● | unforeseen
safety issues; and/or |
| ● | lack
of adequate funding to continue any clinical trial. |
Further, delays in obtaining regulatory approvals
may:
| ● | prevent
or delay commercialization of, and our ability to derive product revenues from, product candidates; and |
| ● | diminish
any competitive advantages that we may otherwise believe that we hold. |
Even if we comply with all FDA requests, the FDA
may ultimately reject one or more of our applications. We may never obtain regulatory clearance for any product candidates. Failure to
obtain FDA approval of any of product candidates will severely undermine our business by leaving us without a saleable product, and therefore
without any source of revenues, until another product candidate can be developed. There is no guarantee that we will ever be able to develop
or acquire another product candidate.
In addition, the FDA may require us to conduct
additional preclinical and clinical testing or to perform post-marketing studies, as a condition to granting marketing approval of a product.
Initial acceptance by the FDA of clinical trial protocols is subject to constant review and any process control failures could result
in additional required testing. Regulatory approval of products often requires that subjects in clinical trials be followed for long periods
to assess their overall survival. The results generated after approval could result in loss of marketing approval, changes in product
labeling, and/or new or increased concerns about the side effects or efficacy of a product. The FDA has significant post-market authority,
including the explicit authority to require post-market studies and clinical trials, labeling changes based on new safety information,
and compliance with FDA-approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. The FDA’s exercise of its authority has in some cases
resulted, and in the future could result, in delays or increased costs during product development, clinical trials and regulatory review,
increased costs to comply with additional post-approval regulatory requirements and potential restrictions on sales of approved products
based on labeling or other requirements.
In foreign jurisdictions, we must also receive
approval from the appropriate regulatory authorities before we can commercialize any candidate products. Foreign regulatory approval processes
generally include all of the risks associated with the FDA approval procedures described above. There can be no assurance that we will
receive the approvals necessary to commercialize our product candidate for sale outside the United States.
Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance
may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols or our development plan to reflect these changes. Amendments may require
resubmitting clinical trial protocols to FDA and institutional review boards for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or
successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays in completion of, or if we terminate any clinical trials, the commercial
prospects for product candidates may be harmed, and the ability to generate product revenues will be delayed. In addition, many of the
factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of
regulatory approval of product candidates.
Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval
of product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of product candidates
in other jurisdictions.
Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval
of product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other
jurisdiction, and a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory
approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities
in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval
procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those
in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may
not be accepted by or sufficient for regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a
product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price
that we intend to charge for our candidate products is also subject to approval. Additionally, some foreign jurisdictions require participation
of subjects from their country in the Phase 3 trials in order to gain approval in their country.
We intend to also submit marketing applications
in other jurisdictions, including European countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements
for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals
and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay
or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international
markets and/or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market
potential of AD04 or any future product candidates will be harmed.
Even if we receive regulatory approval of AD04
or any future product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations, such as post market surveillance and current good
manufacturing practice (“GMP”) requirements, and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense.
We may also be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with product
candidates. In addition, third parties on whom we rely must comply with regulatory requirements, and any non-compliance on their part
may negatively impact our business, assuming we obtain regulatory authorization at all.
Any regulatory approvals that we receive for product
candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a Risk Evaluation
and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) program in order to approve product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication
guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries
and other risk minimization tools. The FDA could also require a boxed warning, sometimes referred to as a Black Box Warning on the product
label to identify a particular safety risk, which could affect commercial efforts to promote and sell the product. In addition, if the
FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution,
adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for product candidates will be subject to extensive
and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports,
registration, as well as continued compliance with current GMPs and current good clinical practices (“GCPs”) for any clinical
trials that we conduct post-approval. We are also subject to certain user fees imposed by the regulatory agencies. Later discovery of
previously unknown problems with product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party
manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:
| ● | restrictions
on the marketing or manufacturing of product candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market, or product recalls; |
| ● | fines,
warning letters or holds on clinical trials; |
| ● | refusal
by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of approvals; |
| ● | product
seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of product candidates; and |
| ● | injunctions
or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. |
The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’
policies may change, such as those required by the 21st Century Cures Act, and additional government regulations may be enacted
that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of AD04 or any future product candidates. In addition, it is unclear what changes,
if any, the new presidential administration may bring. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that
may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to
changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance,
we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.
Clinical trials are very expensive, time-consuming
and difficult to design and implement.
As part of the regulatory process, we must conduct
clinical trials for each product candidate to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and other regulatory authorities.
As we advance AD04 or any future product candidates we expect that our expenses will increase. The number and design of the clinical trials
that will be required varies depending upon product candidate, the condition being evaluated, current medical strategies and the trial
results themselves. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately estimate the cost of the clinical trials. Clinical trials are very expensive
and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The clinical trial process
is also time consuming. We estimate that clinical trials of product candidates including AD04, will take at least several years to complete.
Furthermore, failure can occur at any stage of the trials, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical
trials. The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed or prevented by several factors, including:
| ● | unforeseen
safety issues; |
| ● | failure
to determine appropriate dosing; |
| ● | greater
than anticipated cost of our clinical trials; |
| ● | failure
to demonstrate effectiveness during clinical trials; |
| ● | slower
than expected rates of subject recruitment or difficulty obtaining investigators; |
| ● | subject
drop-out or discontinuation; |
| ● | inability
to monitor subjects adequately during or after treatment; |
| ● | third
party contractors, including, without limitation, CRO’s and manufacturers, failing to comply with regulatory requirements or meet
their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner; |
| ● | reaching
agreements with prospective CROs, and trial sites, both of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among
different CROs and trial sites; |
| ● | insufficient
or inadequate supply or quality of product candidates or other necessary materials to conduct our trials; |
| ● | potential
additional safety monitoring, or other conditions required by FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities regarding the scope or
design of our clinical trials, or other studies requested by regulatory agencies; |
| ● | problems
engaging Institutional Review Boards (“IRBs”), to oversee trials or in obtaining and maintaining IRB approval of studies; |
| ● | imposition
of clinical hold or suspension of our clinical trials by regulatory authorities; and |
| ● | inability
or unwillingness of medical investigators to follow our clinical protocols. |
In addition, we or the FDA may suspend or terminate
our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the FDA finds deficiencies
in our Investigational New Drug, or IND, submissions or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty when,
if ever, future clinical trials will commence or be completed.
AD04 and any future product candidates may
cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval,
limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.
Undesirable side effects caused by AD04 or any
future product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more
restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results
of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or other unexpected characteristics.
If unacceptable safety concerns or other adverse
events arise in the development of a product candidate, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated or the FDA or comparable
foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of such product candidate for any or all targeted
indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the
trial or result in potential product liability claims. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of a
product candidate could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
We may incur substantial liabilities and
may be required to limit commercialization of our products in response to product liability lawsuits.
The testing and marketing of drug product candidates
entail an inherent risk of product liability. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers
or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. Clinical trial liability claims may be filed against us for damages
suffered by clinical trial subjects or their families. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we
may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our products which could impact our ability to continue
as a going concern. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential
product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of pharmaceutical products we develop, alone or with collaborators.
In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:
| ● | decreased
demand for any approved product candidates; |
| ● | impairment
of our business reputation; |
| ● | withdrawal
of clinical trial participants; |
| ● | costs of related litigation; |
| ● | distraction
of management’s attention; |
| ● | substantial
monetary awards to patients or other claimants; |
| ● | the
inability to successfully commercialize any approved drug candidates. |
There is uncertainty as to market acceptance
of our technology and product candidates.
Even if the FDA approves our current product candidate,
or any future product candidates we may develop or acquire, the products may not gain broad market acceptance among physicians, healthcare
payers, patients, and the medical community. We have conducted our own research into the markets for our product candidates; however,
we cannot guarantee market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, and have somewhat limited information on which to estimate
our anticipated level of sales. Product candidates, if approved, will require patients, healthcare providers and doctors to adopt our
technology. Our industry is susceptible to rapid technological developments and there can be no assurance that we will be able to match
any new technological advances. If we are unable to match the technological changes in the needs of our customers, the demand for our
products will be reduced. Acceptance and use of any products we market, assuming market authorization approval at all, will depend upon
a number of factors including:
| ● | perceptions
by members of the health care community, including physicians, about the safety and effectiveness of our products; |
| ● | limitation
on use or warnings required by FDA in our product labeling; |
| ● | cost-effectiveness
of our products relative to competing products; |
| ● | convenience
and ease of administration; |
| ● | potential
advantages of alternative treatment methods; |
| ● | availability
of reimbursement for our products from government or other healthcare payers; and |
| ● | effectiveness
of marketing and distribution efforts by us and our licensees and distributors, if any. |
Because we expect virtually all of our product
revenues for the foreseeable future to be generated from sales of AD04, if approved, the failure of this product to find market acceptance
would substantially harm our business and would adversely affect our revenue.
Even if we are able to obtain regulatory
approval for our product candidate or any product candidates we develop or acquire, we will continue to be subject to ongoing and extensive
regulatory requirements, and our failure, or the failure of our contract manufacturers, to comply with these requirements could substantially
harm our business.
If the FDA approves our product candidate or any
product candidates we develop or acquire, the labeling, manufacturing, packaging, adverse events reporting, storage, advertising, promotion
and record-keeping for our products will be subject to ongoing FDA requirements and continued regulatory oversight and review. We may
also be subject to additional FDA post-marketing obligations. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted
to market product candidates and/or may be subject to product recalls or seizures. The subsequent discovery of previously unknown problems
with any marketed product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, may result in restrictions on the marketing
of the product, and could include withdrawal of the product from the market.
Our employees, independent contractors,
consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory
standards and requirements.
We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or
other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties
could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: (i) comply with the laws of the FDA and other similar foreign
regulatory bodies; (ii) provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies; (iii)
comply with manufacturing standards we have established; (iv) comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar
foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or (v) report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us.
Any such misconduct or noncompliance could negatively affect the FDA’s review of our regulatory submission, including delaying approval
or disallowance of certain information to support the submission, and/or delay a federal or state healthcare program’s or a commercial
insurer’s determination regarding the availability of future reimbursement for product candidates. If we obtain FDA approval of
any product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase
significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other
things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and
education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements
in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices.
These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s),
certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper
use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The laws that may affect our ability to operate
or may require us to modify certain programs include, but are not limited to:
| ● | the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying
any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce,
or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or
service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; |
| ● | federal
civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from
knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors
(both governmental and private) that are false or fraudulent or knowingly making a false statement to improperly avoid, decrease or conceal
an obligation to pay money to a federal or state healthcare program or private payor; |
| ● | the
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which, among other things, created new federal
criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit
program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or
under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and
willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection
with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters; |
| ● | HIPAA,
as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”), and their respective
implementing regulations, which, among other things, impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare
clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of,
individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of such individually identifiable health
information; |
| ● | the
federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, created under the Healthcare Reform Act (as defined herein), and its implementing regulations,
which require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare,
Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the United States Department
of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined
to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment
interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; |
| ● | federal
consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers;
and |
| ● | the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) and similar antibribery and anticorruption laws in other countries that, for example,
prevent improper payments or transfers of anything of value to foreign officials for the purpose of gaining commercial advantage, obtaining
or retaining business, or to enhancing clinical trials. |
Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign
equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless
of the payor.
It is not always possible to identify and deter
employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct may not be effective in controlling unknown
or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure
to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare
laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices
may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws
and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights,
those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties,
damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs,
contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could
adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of
any product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above,
among other foreign laws.
We have no experience selling, marketing
or distributing products and have no internal capability to do so.
We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution
capabilities, including, without limitation, capabilities to market AD04 or its companion genetic test. We do not anticipate having the
resources in the foreseeable future to allocate to the sales and marketing of our proposed products, if approved. Our future success depends,
in part, on our ability to enter into and maintain collaborative relationships for such capabilities, the collaborator’s strategic
interest in the products under development and such collaborator’s ability to successfully market and sell any such products. We
intend to pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products, however, there can be no assurance that
we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if able to do so, that our collaborators will have effective
sales forces. To the extent that we decide not to, or are unable to, enter into collaborative arrangements with respect to the sales and
marketing of our proposed products, significant capital expenditures, management resources and time will be required to establish and
develop an in-house marketing and sales force with technical expertise. There can also be no assurance that we will be able to establish
or maintain relationships with third party collaborators or develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities. To the extent that we
depend on third parties for marketing and distribution, any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties over
whom we have no control, and there can be no assurance that such efforts will be successful. In addition, there can also be no assurance
that we will be able to successfully market and sell our products in the United States or overseas on our own.
We may not be successful in establishing
and maintaining strategic partnerships, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize products.
We may seek to enter into strategic partnerships
in the future, including alliances with other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, to enhance and accelerate the development and
commercialization of our products, such as a third party drug development company. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate
strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex and can be costly. Moreover, we may not be successful in
our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because
our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early of a stage
of development for collaborative effort and/or third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite
potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy or return on investment. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish strategic
partnerships, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us and we may not be able to maintain such strategic partnerships if,
for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing.
If we ultimately determine that entering into
strategic partnerships is in our best interest but either fail to enter into, are delayed in entering into or fail to maintain such strategic
partnerships:
| ● | the
development of our current product candidate or certain future product candidates may be terminated or delayed; |
| ● | our
planned clinical trials may be restructured or terminated; |
| ● | our
cash expenditures related to development of our current product candidate or certain future product candidates may increase significantly
and we may need to seek additional financing; |
| ● | we
may be required to hire additional employees or otherwise develop expertise, such as sales and marketing expertise, for which we have
not budgeted; |
| ● | we
will bear all of the risk related to the development of any such product candidates; and |
| ● | the
competitiveness of any product candidate that is commercialized could be reduced. |
To the extent we elect to enter into licensing
or collaboration agreements to partner AD04 or any future product candidates, our dependence on such relationships may adversely affect
our business.
Our commercialization strategy for certain product
candidates may depend on our ability to enter into agreements with collaborators to obtain assistance and funding for the development
and potential commercialization of these investigational product candidates. Supporting diligence activities conducted by potential collaborators
and negotiating the financial and other terms of a collaboration agreement are long and complex processes with uncertain results. Even
if we are successful in entering into one or more collaboration agreements, collaborations may involve greater uncertainty for us, as
we have less control over certain aspects of our collaborative programs than we do over our proprietary development and commercialization
programs. Our collaborators could delay or terminate their agreements, and our product candidates subject to collaborative arrangements
may never be successfully developed or commercialized.
Further, our future collaborators may develop
alternative products or pursue alternative technologies either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors,
and the priorities or focus of our collaborators may shift such that our programs receive less attention or fewer resources than we would
like, or they may be terminated altogether. Any such actions by our collaborators may adversely affect our business prospects and ability
to earn revenues. In addition, we could have disputes with our future collaborators, such as the interpretation of terms in our agreements.
Any such disagreements could lead to delays in the development or commercialization of any potential products or could result in time-consuming
and expensive litigation or arbitration, which may not be resolved in our favor.
We may face particular data protection,
data security and privacy risks in connection with the European Union’s Global Data Protection Regulation and other privacy regulations.
Outside of the United States, the laws, regulations
and standards in many jurisdictions apply broadly to the collection, use, and other processing of personal information. For example, in
the European Union, the collection and use of personal data are governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (the
“GDPR”). The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the European Union. member states governing
the processing of personal data, impose strict obligations on entities subject to the GDPR, including but not limited to: (i) accountability
and transparency requirements, and enhanced requirements for obtaining valid consent from data subjects; (ii) obligations to consider
data protection as any new products or services are developed and to limit the amount of personal data processed; (iii) obligations to
comply with the data protection rights of data subjects; and (iv) obligations to report certain personal data breaches to governmental
authorities and individuals. Data protection authorities from the different E.U. member states and other European countries may enforce
the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the
complexity of processing European personal data. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection
laws may result in significant monetary fines and other administrative penalties (the GDPR authorizes fines for certain violations of
up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million, whichever is greater) as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose
personal data was processed. Additionally, expenses associated with compliance could reduce our operating margins.
The GDPR also prohibits the transfer of personal
data from the E.U. to countries outside of the E.U. unless made to a country deemed by the European Commission to provide adequate protection
for personal data or accomplished by means of an approved data transfer mechanism (e.g., standard contractual clauses). Data protection
authority guidance and enforcement actions that restrict companies’ ability to transfer data may increase risk relating to data
transfers or make it more difficult or impossible to transfer E.U. personal data to the U.S.
Our internal computer systems, or those
used by our CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.
Despite the implementation of security measures,
our internal computer systems and those of our future CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer
viruses and unauthorized access. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an
event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and
our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays
in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Since we rely on third parties
for research and development of AD04 and expect do so for future product candidates and for the manufacture of product candidates and
to conduct clinical trials, similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business.
To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate
disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of product
candidates could be delayed.
We have limited protection for our intellectual
property. Our licensed patents and proprietary rights may not prevent us from infringing on the rights of others or prohibit potential
competitors from commercializing products.
We intend to rely on a combination of common law
copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret laws and measures to protect our proprietary information. We have licensed patents to protect
certain of our proprietary intellectual property and have obtained exclusive rights to license certain of the technology for which patent
protection has been obtained; however, such protection does not prevent unauthorized use of such technology. Trademark and copyright protections
may be limited, and enforcement could be too costly to be effective. It may also be possible for unauthorized third parties to copy aspects
of, or otherwise obtain and use, our proprietary information without authorization, including, but not limited to, product design, software,
customer and prospective customer lists, trade secrets, copyrights, patents and other proprietary rights and materials. Other parties
can use and register confusingly similar business, product and service names, as well as domain names, which could divert customers, resulting
in a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
We have not conducted an exhaustive patent search
and cannot assure you that patents do not exist or could not be filed that would negatively affect our ability to market our products
or maintain our competitive position with respect to our products. Additionally, our licensed patents may not prevent others from developing
competitive products using related technology. Furthermore, other companies that obtain patents claiming products or processes useful
to us may bring infringement actions against us. As a result, we may be required to obtain licenses from others to develop, manufacture
or market our products. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain any such licenses on commercially reasonable terms, if at
all.
We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary
know-how that we seek to protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, suppliers, and licensees. We
cannot give any assurance that these third parties will not breach these agreements, that we would have adequate remedies for any breach,
or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors.
We cannot assure you that the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) will approve pending patent applications for intellectual property for which we are currently the
exclusive worldwide licensee, or that any patent issued to, or licensed by, us will provide protection that has commercial significance.
In this regard, the patent position of pharmaceutical compounds and compositions is particularly uncertain. Even issued patents may later
be modified or revoked by the USPTO in proceedings instituted by others or by us. In addition, we cannot assure you that our licensed
patents will afford protection against competitors with similar compounds or technologies, that others will not obtain patents with claims
similar to those covered by our licensed patents or applications, or that the patents of others will not adversely affect our ability
to conduct our business.
Despite licensing patents issued in more than
40 jurisdictions around the world, continuing to achieve additional foreign patent issuances and maintaining and defending foreign patents
may be more difficult than defending domestic patents because of differences in patent laws, and our licensed patent position therefore
may be stronger in the United States than abroad. In addition, the protection provided by foreign patents, once they are obtained, may
be weaker than that provided in the United States.
If we fail to successfully enforce our intellectual
property rights, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our operating results. Competitors may challenge the validity
or scope of our licensed patents or future patents we may obtain or license. In addition, our licensed patents may not provide us with
a meaningful competitive advantage. We may be required to spend significant resources to monitor and police our licensed intellectual
property rights. We may not be able to detect infringement and our competitive position may be harmed. In addition, competitors may design
around our technology or develop competing technologies. Intellectual property rights may also be unavailable or limited in some foreign
countries, which could make it easier for competitors to capture market share.
The technology we license, our products
or our development efforts may be found to infringe upon third-party intellectual property rights.
Our commercial success depends in part on us avoiding
infringement of the patents and 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 and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in other
jurisdictions. Recently, under the American Invents Act (“AIA”), new procedures including inter parties review and
post grant review have been implemented. These procedures are relatively new and the manner in which they are being implemented continues
to evolve, which brings additional uncertainty to our licensed patents and pending applications. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents
and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing 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.
Third parties may, in the future, assert claims
or initiate litigation related to their patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights in technology that is important
to us. The asserted claims and/or litigation could include claims against us, our licensors or our suppliers alleging infringement of
intellectual property rights with respect to our products or components of those products. Regardless of the merit of the claims, they
could be time consuming, result in costly litigation and diversion of technical and management personnel, or require us to develop a non-infringing
technology or enter into license agreements. We have not undertaken an exhaustive search to discover any third party intellectual patent
rights which might be infringed by commercialization of the product candidates described herein. Although we are not currently aware of
any such third party intellectual patent rights, it is possible that such rights currently exist or might be obtained in the future. In
the event that a third party controls such rights and we are unable to obtain a license to such rights on commercially reasonable terms,
we may not be able to sell or continue to develop our products, and may be liable for damages for such infringement. We cannot assure
you that licenses will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Furthermore, because of the potential for significant damage awards,
which are not necessarily predictable, it is not unusual to find even arguably unmeritorious claims resulting in large settlements. If
any infringement or other intellectual property claim made against us by any third party is successful, or if we fail to develop non-infringing
technology or license the proprietary rights on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, our business, operating results and financial
condition could be materially adversely affected.
If our products, methods, processes and other
technologies infringe the proprietary rights of other parties, we could incur substantial costs and we may have to:
| ● | obtain
licenses, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all; |
| ● | abandon
an infringing drug or therapy candidate; |
| ● | redesign
our products or processes to avoid infringement; |
| ● | stop
using the subject matter claimed in the patents held by others; |
| ● | defend
litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly whether we win or lose, and which could result in a substantial diversion
of our financial and management resources. |
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 product candidates.
Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion
of employee 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 such license 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 product candidates. 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 product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect
or enforce the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe 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 licensed patents is not valid or is unenforceable,
or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our licensed patents do not cover the technology
in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our licensed patents at risk of being
invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our licensed patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense
of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee
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.
Interference proceedings provoked by third parties
or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to some of our licensed patents or patent
applications subject to pre-AIA or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current licensed patent
rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our
business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Litigation or interference
proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract
our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets
or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.
A derivation proceeding is a trial proceeding
conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to determine whether (i) an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed
invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application; and (ii) the earlier application claiming such invention was filed
without authorization. An applicant subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding
only within one year of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application’s
claim to the invention. The petition must be supported by substantial evidence that the claimed invention was derived from an inventor
named in the petitioner’s application. Derivation proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we
are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.
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, it could
have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our shares of common stock.
Obtaining and maintaining patent protection
depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent
agencies, and our patent protection 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
governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during
the patent application process. 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 rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application,
resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. In such an event, our competitors might be able
to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.
Patents are subject to changing legal interpretation
by the USPTO and the Courts.
If the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts,
or the USPTO were to change the standards of patentability such changes could have a negative impact on our business. Recent court cases
have made it more difficult to protect certain types of inventions. For instance, on October 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit issued a decision that methods or processes cannot be patented unless they are tied to a machine or involve a physical transformation.
On March 20, 2012, in the case Mayo v. Prometheus, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a patent focused on a diagnostic process
because the patent claim embodied a law of nature. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO issued its Interim Guidelines for Subject Matter Eligibility
Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature in view of the Prometheus decision. It remains to be seen how these guidelines
will play out in the actual prosecution of diagnostic claims. Similarly, it remains to be seen how lower courts will interpret the Prometheus
decision. Some aspects of our technology involve processes that may be subject to this evolving standard and we cannot guarantee that
any of our pending process claims will be patentable as a result of such evolving standards.
We may be subject to claims that our employees,
consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.
We have received confidential and proprietary
information from third parties. In addition, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical
companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise
used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ 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 cost
and be a distraction to our management and employees.
Our ability to generate product revenues
will be diminished if our products sell for inadequate prices or patients are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement.
Our ability to commercialize our products, alone
or with collaborators, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement will be available from:
| ● | government
and health administration authorities; |
| ● | private
health maintenance organizations and health insurers; and |
| ● | other
healthcare payers. |
Patients generally expect that products such as
ours are covered and reimbursed by third-party payors for all or part of the costs and fees associated with their use. If such products
are not covered and reimbursed then patients may be responsible for the entire cost of the product, which can be substantial. Therefore,
health care providers generally do not prescribe products that are not covered and reimbursed by third-party payors in order to avoid
subjecting their patients to such financial liability. The existence of adequate coverage and reimbursement for the products by government
and private insurance plans is central to the acceptance of AD04 and any future products we provide.
During the past several years, third-party payors
have undertaken cost-containment initiatives including different payment methods, monitoring health care expenditures, and anti-fraud
initiatives. For some governmental programs, such as Medicaid, coverage and reimbursement differ from state to state, and some state Medicaid
programs may not pay an adequate amount for AD04 or any of our other products or may make no payment at all. Furthermore, the health care
industry in the United States has experienced a trend toward cost containment as government and private insurers seek to control health
care costs by imposing lower payment rates and negotiating reduced contract rates with service providers. Therefore, we cannot be certain
that our services will be reimbursed at a level that is sufficient to meet our costs.
Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval
of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the
payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products. Even if we obtain coverage for a given
product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments
that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use AD04 or any future product candidates unless coverage is provided and
reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of AD04 or any future product candidates.
We intend to seek approval to market AD04 and
future product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign
jurisdictions for AD04 or any future product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign
countries, particularly those in the European Union, the pricing of drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing
negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition,
market acceptance and sales of product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement
from third-party payors for product candidates and may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures.
Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign,
or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States
and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could
impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended
by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “Healthcare Reform Act”), was enacted.
The Healthcare Reform Act and its implementing regulations, among other things, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers
to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs, including product candidates, under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program
are calculated, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the
Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected
manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the
federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and
adopted in the United States since the Healthcare Reform Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other
things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending
a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering
the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to
providers up to 2% per fiscal year. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “ATRA”)
which delayed for another two months the budget cuts mandated by these sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. In
March 2013, the President signed an executive order implementing sequestration, and in April 2013, the 2% Medicare payment reductions
went into effect. The ATRA also, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers
and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers
from three to five years.
There have been, and likely will continue to be,
legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and
containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future, particularly in light
of the new presidential administration in the United States, and any proposed changes to healthcare laws that could potentially affect
our clinical development or regulatory strategy. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations
and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:
| ● | the
demand for AD04, or future product candidates, if we obtain regulatory approval; |
| ● | our
ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products; |
| ● | our
ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability; |
| ● | the
level of taxes that we are required to pay; and |
| ● | the
availability of capital. |
Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare,
Medicaid or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our
future profitability.
If we are unable to obtain adequate coverage
and reimbursement for our tests, it is unlikely that our tests will gain widespread acceptance.
Use of our product candidate will require pre-treatment
screening. Our strategy for AD04 aims to integrate pre-treatment screening into the drug label, effectively creating a patient-specific
or “precision” treatment into one integrated therapeutic offering. Our ability to generate revenue will depend upon the availability
of adequate coverage and reimbursement for our tests from third-party payors, including government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid,
private insurance plans and managed care programs. Health care providers that order diagnostic services generally expect that those diagnostic
services are covered and reimbursed by third-party payors for all or part of the costs and fees associated with the diagnostic tests they
order. If such diagnostic tests are not covered and reimbursed then their patients may be responsible for the entire cost of the test,
which can be substantial. Therefore, health care providers generally do not order tests that are not covered and reimbursed by third-party
payors in order to avoid subjecting their patients to such financial liability. The existence of adequate coverage and reimbursement for
the procedures performed by us by government and private insurance plans is central to the acceptance of our product candidate. During
the past several years, third-party payors have undertaken cost-containment initiatives including different payment methods, monitoring
health care expenditures, and anti-fraud initiatives. In addition, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers
the Medicare program, has taken the position that the algorithm portion of multi-analyst algorithmic assays, or MAAAs, is not a clinical
laboratory test and is therefore not reimbursable under the Medicare program. Although this position is only applicable to tests with
a CMS determined national payment amount, it is possible that the local MACs, who make coverage and payment determinations for tests such
as ours may adopt this policy and reduce payment for such test. If that were to happen, reimbursement for our pre-screening tests would
be uncertain. We may not be able to achieve or maintain profitability if third-party payors deny coverage or reduce their current levels
of payment, or if our costs of production increase faster than increases in reimbursement levels. Further, many private payors use coverage
decisions and payment amounts determined by CMS as guidelines in setting their coverage and reimbursement policies. Future action by CMS
or other government agencies may diminish payments to clinical laboratories, physicians, outpatient centers and/or hospitals. Those private
payors that do not follow the Medicare guidelines may adopt different coverage and reimbursement policies for us and coverage and the
amount of reimbursement under those polices is uncertain. For some governmental programs, such as Medicaid, coverage and reimbursement
differ from state to state, and some state Medicaid programs may not pay an adequate amount for MyPRS® or may make no payment
at all. As the portion of the U.S. population over the age of 65 and eligible for Medicare continues to grow, we may be more vulnerable
to coverage and reimbursement limitations imposed by CMS. Furthermore, the health care industry in the United States has experienced a
general trend toward cost containment as government and private insurers seek to control health care costs through various mechanisms,
including imposing limitations on payment rates and negotiating reduced contract rates with service providers, among other things. Therefore,
we cannot be certain that our services will be reimbursed at a level that is sufficient to meet our costs.
A variety of risks associated with marketing
AD04 or any future product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.
We plan to seek regulatory approval of AD04 and
any future product candidates outside of the United States, in particular in European markets, and, accordingly, we expect that we will
be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:
| ● | differing
regulatory and reimbursement requirements in foreign countries; |
| ● | unexpected
changes in tariffs, trade barriers, price and exchange controls and other regulatory requirements; |
| ● | economic
weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; |
| ● | compliance
with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; |
| ● | foreign
taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes; |
| ● | foreign
currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing
business in another country; |
| ● | compliance
with U.S. and foreign export control regulations, including economic sanctions and embargo programs, each of which may be subject to
unexpected changes; |
| ● | difficulties
staffing and managing foreign operations; |
| ● | workforce
uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States; |
| ● | potential
liability under the FCPA or comparable foreign regulations; |
| ● | challenges
enforcing our contractual and intellectual property rights, especially in those foreign countries that do not respect and protect intellectual
property rights to the same extent as the United States; |
| ● | production
shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; |
| ● | business
interruptions resulting from geo-political actions, including war and terrorism; and |
| ● | potential
difficulties that may arise with pharmaceutical company partners under license or other agreement to jointly develop, seek regulatory
approval, and commercialize our products. |
These and other risks associated with our international
operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.
We may not successfully effect our intended
expansion.
Our success will depend upon the expansion of
our operations and the effective management of our growth, which will place a significant strain on our management and on our administrative,
operational and financial resources. To manage this growth, we must expand our facilities, augment our operational, financial and management
systems and hire additional qualified personnel. We will need to hire additional qualified personnel with expertise in preclinical and
clinical research, government regulation, formulation and manufacturing, sales and marketing and accounting and financing. In particular,
over the next 12 months, we expect to hire additional new employees. We compete for qualified individuals with numerous biopharmaceutical
companies, universities and other research institutions. Competition for such individuals is intense, and we cannot be certain that our
search for such personnel will be successful. Attracting and retaining qualified personnel will be critical to our success. If we are
unable to manage our growth effectively, our business would be harmed.
We rely on key executive officers and scientific,
regulatory and medical advisors, and their knowledge of our business and technical expertise would be difficult to replace.
Because of the specialized nature of our business,
our ability to maintain a competitive position depends on our ability to attract and retain qualified management and other personnel.
We cannot assure you that we will be able to continue to attract or retain such persons.
We are highly dependent on our principal scientific, regulatory and
medical advisors and our chief executive officer. We do not have an insurance policy on the life of our chief executive officer, Cary
J. Claiborne; and we do not have “key person” life insurance policies for any of our other officers or advisors. The loss
of the technical knowledge and management and industry expertise of any of our key personnel could result in delays in product development,
loss of customers and sales and diversion of management resources, which could adversely affect our operating results.
Certain of our officers may have a conflict
of interest.
Certain of our officers are currently working
for our company on a part-time basis and we expect that they will continue to do so. Our employment agreement with our Chief Financial
Officer provides that he will devote 75% of their business time, respectively, to our matters, with their remaining business time devoted
to other matters including, without limitation, employment at other companies that are non-competitive with us, which may result in a
lack of availability when needed due to responsibilities with other requirements. Our consulting agreement with our Chief Medical Officer
provides that he will devote 75% of his business time to our matters, with his remaining business time devoted to other matters including,
without limitation, employment at other companies that are non-competitive with us, which may result in a lack of availability when needed
due to responsibilities with other requirements.
We may acquire other businesses or form
joint ventures or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’
ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expense.
As part of our business strategy, we may pursue
acquisitions of businesses and assets, such as the Acquisition of Purnovate. We also may pursue strategic alliances and joint ventures
that leverage our technology and industry experience to expand our offerings or other capabilities. Though certain company personnel have
business development and corporate transaction experience, including with licensing, mergers and acquisitions, and strategic partnering,
as a company we have no experience with acquiring other companies and limited experience with forming strategic alliances and joint ventures.
We may not be able to find suitable partners or acquisition candidates, and we may not be able to complete such transactions on favorable
terms, if at all. If we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business,
and we could assume unknown or contingent liabilities. Any future acquisitions also could result in significant write-offs or the incurrence
of debt and contingent liabilities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows. Integration of an acquired company also may disrupt ongoing operations and require management resources that would otherwise
focus on developing our existing business. We may experience losses related to investments in other companies, which could have a material
negative effect on our results of operations. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective
basis, or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, technology license, strategic alliance or joint
venture.
To finance any acquisitions or joint ventures,
we may choose to issue shares of our common stock as consideration, which would dilute the ownership of our stockholders. If the price
of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies or fund a joint venture project using our stock
as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for acquisitions through public or private financings.
Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.
Declining general economic or business conditions
may have a negative impact on our business.
Continuing concerns over U.S. health care reform
legislation and energy costs, geopolitical issues, including those in Eastern Europe, the availability and cost of credit and government
stimulus programs in the United States and other countries have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the
global economy. These factors, combined with low business and consumer confidence and high unemployment, precipitated an economic slowdown
and recession and stagnant economy for more than a decade. Additionally, political changes in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world have
created a level of uncertainty in the markets. If the economic climate does not improve or deteriorate, our business, as well as the financial
condition of our suppliers and our third-party payors, could be adversely affected, resulting in a negative impact on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
Health care policy changes, including legislation
reforming the U.S. health care system and other legislative initiatives, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
Government payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid,
have taken steps and can be expected to continue to take steps to control the cost, utilization and delivery of health care services,
including clinical laboratory test services.
In March 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA,
which made a number of substantial changes in the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. It is unclear
what, if any, changes the new administration will make to the health care system. We cannot predict whether future health care initiatives
will be implemented at the federal or state level, or how any future legislation or regulation may affect us.
Risks Related to Our Securities and Investing
in Our Securities
Certain of our shareholders have sufficient
voting power to make corporate governance decisions that could have a significant influence on us and the other stockholders.
Our officers and directors currently beneficially own (would own, if
they collectively exercised all owned warrants and options exercisable within 60 days) approximately 21% of our outstanding common stock.
Bankole Johnson, our Chief Medical Officer and our former Chairman of the Board of Directors; Mr. Claiborne, our Chief Executive Officer;
Mr. Stilley, Executive Vice President, director, and Chief Executive Officer of our subsidiary, Purnovate; Kevin Schuyler, chairman of
our Board of Directors; Joseph Truluck, our Chief Financial Officer; and James W. Newman, a director, beneficially own approximately 3.0%,
4.2%, 8.5%, 1.0%, 2.3%, and 3.0%, respectively, of our common stock. As a result, our directors currently have significant influence over
our management and affairs and over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant
corporate transactions. In addition, this concentration of ownership may delay or prevent a change in our control and might affect the
market price of our common stock, even when a change in control may be in the best interest of all stockholders. Furthermore, the interests
of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders. Accordingly, these
stockholders could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements that we would not otherwise consider.
Future sales and issuances of our common
stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans and outstanding warrants, could result in additional
dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.
We expect that significant additional capital
may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded
research and development activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock,
convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time.
If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such
sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges
senior to the holders of our common stock. Pursuant to our 2017 equity incentive plan, which became effective on the business day prior
to the public trading date of our common stock, our management is authorized to grant equity awards to our employees, officers, directors
and consultants.
Initially, the aggregate number of shares of our
common stock that might be issued pursuant to stock awards under our 2017 equity incentive plan was 1,750,000 shares, which has been since
increased to 7,500,000 at our 2021 Annual Stockholders Meeting, and of which 3,074,383 remain available for grant as of the date hereof.
Increases in the number of shares available for future grant or purchase may result in additional dilution, which could cause our stock
price to decline.
At December 31, 2022, we had outstanding (i) warrants
to purchase 12,168,159 shares of common stock outstanding at exercise prices ranging from $0.005 to $7.63 (with a weighted average exercise
price of $4.03), and (ii) options to purchase 4,316,977 shares of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $2.48 per share.
The issuance of the shares of common stock underlying the options and warrants will have a dilutive effect on the percentage ownership
held by holders of our common stock.
At the date of this filing, having issued a significant
number of options and seen a significant number of warrant exercised, we had outstanding (i) warrants to purchase 12,168,159 shares of
common stock outstanding at exercise prices ranging from $0.005 to $7.634 (with a weighted average exercise price of $4.03), and (ii)
options to purchase 4,316,977 shares of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $2.48 per share. The issuance of the shares
of common stock underlying the options and warrants will have a dilutive effect on the percentage ownership held by holders of our common
stock.
We have additional securities available
for issuance, which, if issued, could adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock.
Our Certificate of Incorporation authorizes the
issuance of 50,000,000 shares of common stock and 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock. The common stock and preferred stock, as well as
the awards available for issuance under our 2017 equity incentive plan, can be issued by our board of directors, without stockholder approval.
Any future issuances of such stock would further dilute the percentage ownership in us held by holders of our common stock and may be
issued at prices below the initial price offering. In addition, the issuance of preferred stock may be used as an “anti-takeover”
device without further action on the part of our stockholders, and may adversely affect the holders of the common stock.
If we issue preferred stock with superior
rights than our common stock, it could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock and delay or prevent a change in control
of us.
Our board of directors is authorized to issue
5,000,000 shares of preferred stock in series. The issuance of any preferred stock having rights superior to those of the common stock
may result in a decrease in the value or market price of our common stock. Holders of preferred stock may have the right to receive dividends,
certain preferences in liquidation and conversion rights and rights to elect directors. The issuance of preferred stock could, under certain
circumstances, have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us without further vote or action by the stockholders
and may adversely affect the voting and other rights of the holders of our common stock.
We have never paid dividends and have no
plans to pay dividends in the future.
Holders of our common stock are entitled to receive
such dividends as may be declared by our board of directors. To date, we have paid no cash dividends on our preferred or common stock
and we do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain future earnings, if any, to provide funds for
operations of our business. Therefore, any return investors in our preferred or common stock may have will be in the form of appreciation,
if any, in the market value of their common stock.
Our failure to meet the continued listing
requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market could result in a de-listing of our common stock.
Our shares of common stock are listed for trading
on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “ADIL” and our warrants issued in connection with our initial public offering
are listed for trading on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “ADILW.” If we fail to satisfy the continued listing
requirements of The Nasdaq Capital Market such as the corporate governance requirements, the stockholder’s equity requirement or
the minimum closing bid price requirement, The Nasdaq Capital Market may take steps to de-list our common stock or warrants.
On August 31, 2022, we
received written notice from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC notifying us that for the preceding
30 consecutive business days (July 20, 2022 through August 30, 2022), our common stock did not maintain a minimum closing bid price of
$1.00 per share (“Minimum Bid Price Requirement”) as required by Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2). The notice had no immediate
effect on the listing or trading of our common stock which will continue to trade on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “ADIL”.
In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we initially had a compliance period of 180 calendar days, or until February 27,
2023, to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rules, which was extended until August 28, 2023. Compliance can be achieved automatically
and without further action if the closing bid price of our common stock is at or above $1.00 for a minimum of ten consecutive business
days at any time during the compliance period, in which case Nasdaq will notify us of our compliance and the matter will be closed.
We intend to attempt
to take actions to restore our compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements and are seeking shareholder approval of a reverse stock
split at a special meeting of shareholders to be held on April 12, 2023, but we can provide no assurance that our shareholders will approve
such a reverse stock split or that any action taken by us would result in our common stock meeting The Nasdaq listing requirements, or
that any such action would stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our common stock. Any perception that we may not regain
compliance or a delisting of our common stock by Nasdaq could adversely affect our ability to attract new investors, decrease the liquidity
of the outstanding shares of our common stock, reduce the price at which such shares trade and increase the transaction costs inherent
in trading such shares with overall negative effects for our stockholder. In addition, delisting of our common stock from Nasdaq could
deter broker-dealers from making a market in or otherwise seeking or generating interest in our common stock, and might deter certain
institutions and persons from investing in our common stock.
In the event of a de-listing, we would take actions
to restore our compliance with The Nasdaq Capital Market’s listing requirements, but we can provide no assurance that any such action
taken by us would allow our common stock become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our common stock,
prevent our common stock from dropping below The Nasdaq Capital Market, minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance
with The Nasdaq Capital Market’s listing requirements.
The National Securities Markets Improvement Act
of 1996, which is a federal statute, prevents or preempts the states from regulating the sale of certain securities, which are referred
to as “covered securities.” Because our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock is covered securities.
Although the states are preempted from regulating the sale of covered securities, the federal statute does allow the states to investigate
companies if there is a suspicion of fraud, and, if there is a finding of fraudulent activity, then the states can regulate or bar the
sale of covered securities in a particular case. Further, if we were to be delisted from The Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock would
cease to be recognized as covered securities and we would be subject to regulation in each state in which we offer our securities.
We are Seeking Stockholder Approval of a
Reverse Stock Split, Which if Implemented May Not Result In the Intended Benefits
We are seeking stockholder approval of an amendment
to our Certificate of Incorporation to, at the discretion of our Board of Directors effect a reverse stock split with respect to our
issued and outstanding Common Stock at a ratio of 1-for-2 to 1-for-50 (the “Range”), with the ratio within
such Range (the “Reverse Stock Split Ratio”) to be determined at the discretion of the Board Reducing the number of
outstanding shares of the Common Stock through a reverse stock split is intended, absent other factors, to increase the per share market
price of the Common Stock. Other factors, however, such as our financial results, market conditions, the market perception of our business
and other risks, including those set forth below and in our SEC filings and reports, may adversely affect the market price of the Common
Stock. As a result, there can be no assurance that the reverse stock split, if completed, will result in the intended benefits, including
maintaining the average per share market closing price of the Common Stock above $1.00 per share in order to comply with Minimum Bid
Price Requirement under Nasdaq Listing Rules described above, that the market price of the Common Stock will increase following the reverse
stock split or that the market price of the Common Stock will not decrease in the future. The reverse stock split will also reduce the
total number of outstanding shares of Common Stock, which may lead to reduced trading and a smaller number of market makers for the Common
Stock. The reverse stock split may be viewed negatively by the market and, consequently, could lead to a decrease in our overall market
capitalization. If the per share market price of the Common Stock does not increase in proportion to the reverse stock split ratio, then
our value, as measured by our market capitalization, will be reduced. Since the reverse split would reduce the number of shares of Common
Stock outstanding and the number of shares of Common Stock issuable on exercise of our warrants or options, while leaving the number
of shares authorized and issuable unchanged, the reverse stock split would effectively increase the number of shares of the Common Stock
that we would be able to issue and could lead to dilution of the Common Stock in future financings.
We are an “emerging growth company,”
and we cannot be certain if the reduced SEC reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock
less attractive to investors.
We are an “emerging growth company”
as defined in the JOBS Act. We will remain an “emerging growth company” until the earliest to occur of (i) the last day of
the fiscal year during which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.235 billion or more (subject to adjustment for inflation), (ii)
the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the first sale of our common stock pursuant to an effective registration
statement, (iii) the date on 36 • actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property, or services; or • active
and deliberate dishonesty by the director or officer that was established by a final judgment as being material to the cause of action
adjudicated. which we have, during the previous 3-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt, or (iv) the date
on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer.” We intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting
requirements that are applicable to most other public companies, whether or not they are classified as “emerging growth companies,”
including, but not limited to, an exemption from the provisions of Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley requiring that our independent registered
public accounting firm provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. An attestation
report by our auditor would require additional procedures by them that could detect problems with our internal control over financial
reporting that are not detected by management. If our system of internal control over financial reporting is not determined to be appropriately
designed or operating effectively, it could require us to restate financial statements, cause us to fail to meet reporting obligations,
and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information. The JOBS Act also provides that an “emerging growth
company” can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in the Securities Act, for complying with new or revised
accounting standards. However, we have chosen to “opt out” of this extended transition period and, as a result, we will comply
with new or revised accounting standards on or prior to the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for all public
companies that are not emerging growth companies. Our decision to opt out of the extended transition period for complying with new or
revised accounting standards is irrevocable. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we intend
to rely on certain of these exemptions and benefits under the JOBS Act.
As a result of being a public company, we
are subject to additional reporting and corporate governance requirements that will require additional management time, resources and
expense.
As a public company, and particularly after we
are no longer an emerging growth company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private
company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq
Capital Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including the obligation
to file with the SEC annual and quarterly information and other reports that are specified in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the “Exchange Act”), and to establish and maintain effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance
practices. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these
rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly.
We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional
costs we may incur or the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases
due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by
regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated
by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.
Our common stock has often been thinly traded,
so you may be unable to sell at or near ask prices or at all if you need to sell your shares to raise money or otherwise desire to liquidate
your shares.
To date, there have been many days on which limited
trading of our common stock took place. We cannot predict the extent to which investors’ interests will lead to an active trading
market for our common stock or whether the market price of our common stock will be volatile. If an active trading market does not develop,
investors may have difficulty selling any of our common stock that they buy. We are likely to be too small to attract the interest of
many brokerage firms and analysts. We cannot give you any assurance that an active public trading market for our common stock will develop
or be sustained. The market price of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to quarterly variations in our
revenues and operating expenses, announcements of new products or services by us, significant sales of our common stock, including “short”
sales, the operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors may deem comparable to us, and news reports relating
to trends in our markets or general economic conditions.
Our stock price has fluctuated in the past,
has recently been volatile and may be volatile in the future, and as a result, investors in our common stock could incur substantial losses.
The trading price of our common stock has been
and is expected to continue to be volatile and has been and may continue to be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors,
some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. On March 27, 2023, the reported low sale price of our common stock
was $0.36, the reported high sale price was $0.385 and closing price of our common stock was $0.38 while on December 31, 2022 the closing
price of our common stock was $0.22. We may incur rapid and substantial decreases in our stock price in the foreseeable future that are
unrelated to our operating performance for prospects. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section
and elsewhere in this Annual Report, these factors include:
| ● | the
commencement, enrollment or any future clinical trials we may conduct, or changes in the development status of AD04 or any product candidates; |
| ● | any
delay in our regulatory filings for our product candidate and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to
the applicable regulatory authority’s review of such filings, including without limitation the FDA’s issuance of a “refusal
to file” letter or a request for additional information; |
| ● | adverse
results or delays in clinical trials; |
| ● | our
decision to initiate a clinical trial, not to initiate a clinical trial or to terminate an existing clinical trial; |
| ● | adverse
regulatory decisions, including failure to receive regulatory approval of our product candidate; |
| ● | changes
in laws or regulations applicable to our products, including but not limited to clinical trial requirements for approvals; |
| ● | adverse
developments concerning our manufacturers; |
| ● | our
inability to obtain adequate product supply for any approved product or inability to do so at acceptable prices; |
| ● | our
inability to establish collaborations if needed; |
| ● | our
failure to commercialize AD04; |
| ● | additions
or departures of key scientific or management personnel; |
| ● | unanticipated
serious safety concerns related to the use of AD04; |
| ● | introduction
of new products or services offered by us or our competitors; |
| ● | announcements
of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by us or our competitors; |
| ● | our
ability to effectively manage our growth; |
| ● | the
size and growth of our initial target markets; |
| ● | our
ability to successfully treat additional types of indications or at different stages; |
| ● | actual
or anticipated variations in quarterly operating results; |
| ● | our
failure to meet the estimates and projections of the investment community or that we may otherwise provide to the public; |
| ● | publication
of research reports about us or our industry, or positive or negative recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage by securities
analysts; |
| ● | changes
in the market valuations of similar companies; |
| ● | overall
performance of the equity markets; |
| ● | sales
of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the future; |
| ● | trading
volume of our common stock and declines in the market prices of stocks generally; |
| ● | changes
in accounting practices; |
| ● | ineffectiveness
of our internal controls; |
| ● | disputes
or other developments relating to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection
for our or our licensee’s technologies; |
| ● | significant
lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation; |
| ● | general
political and economic conditions; and |
| ● | other
events or factors, many of which are beyond our control, including those resulting from such events, or the prospect of such events,
including war, terrorism and other international conflicts, including the conflict in Eastern Europe, public health issues including
health epidemics or pandemics, such as the recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), and natural disasters such as fire, hurricanes,
earthquakes, tornados or other adverse weather and climate conditions, whether occurring in the United States or elsewhere, could disrupt
our operations, disrupt the operations of our suppliers or result in political or economic instability. |
In addition, the stock market in general, and
The Nasdaq Capital Market and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have
often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively
affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. Since the stock price of our common stock
has fluctuated in the past, has recently been volatile and may be volatile in the future, investors in our common stock could incur substantial
losses. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in
the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion
of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.
Our need for future financing may result
in the issuance of additional securities which will cause investors to experience dilution.
Our cash requirements may vary from those now
planned depending upon numerous factors, including the result of future research and development activities. We will require additional
funds in the future to complete our clinical trials of AD04. There are no other commitments by any person for future financing. In addition,
the issuance of securities in any future financing using our securities may dilute an investor’s equity ownership. Moreover, we
may issue derivative securities, including options and/or warrants, from time to time, to procure qualified personnel or for other business
reasons. The issuance of any such derivative securities, which is at the discretion of our board of directors, may further dilute the
equity ownership of our stockholders. No assurance can be given as to our ability to procure additional financing, if required, and on
terms deemed favorable to us. To the extent additional capital is required and cannot be raised successfully, we may then have to limit
our then current operations and/or may have to curtail certain, if not all, of our business objectives and plans.
The application of the “penny stock”
rules to our common stock could limit the trading and liquidity of the common stock, adversely affect the market price of our common stock
and increase your transaction costs to sell those shares.
If our common stock is no longer listed on The
Nasdaq Capital Market and becomes traded on a securities market or exchange which is not registered as a national securities exchange
with the SEC under Section 6 of the Exchange Act, as long as the trading price of our common stock is below $5 per share, the open-market
trading of our common stock will be subject to the “penny stock” rules, unless we otherwise qualify for an exemption from
the “penny stock” definition. The “penny stock” rules impose additional sales practice requirements on certain
broker-dealers who sell securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors (generally those with assets in
excess of $1.0 million or annual income exceeding $200,000 or $300,000 together with their spouse). These regulations, if they apply,
require the delivery, prior to any transaction involving a penny stock, of a disclosure schedule explaining the penny stock market and
the associated risks. Under these regulations, certain brokers who recommend such securities to persons other than established customers
or certain accredited investors must make a special written suitability determination regarding such a purchaser and receive such purchaser’s
written agreement to a transaction prior to sale. These regulations may have the effect of limiting the trading activity of our common
stock, reducing the liquidity of an investment in our common stock and increasing the transaction costs for sales and purchases of our
common stock as compared to other securities. The stock market in general and the market prices for penny stock companies in particular,
have experienced volatility that often has been unrelated to the operating performance of such companies. These broad market and industry
fluctuations may adversely affect the price of our stock, regardless of our operating performance. Stockholders should be aware that,
according to SEC Release No. 34-29093, the market for penny stocks has suffered in recent years from patterns of fraud and abuse. Such
patterns include: (i) control of the market for the security by one or a few broker-dealers that are often related to the promoter or
issuer; (ii) manipulation of prices through prearranged matching of purchases and sales and false and misleading press releases; (iii)
boiler room practices involving high-pressure sales tactics and unrealistic price projections by inexperienced sales persons; (iv) excessive
and undisclosed bid-ask differential and markups by selling broker-dealers; and (v) the wholesale dumping of the same securities by promoters
and broker-dealers after prices have been manipulated to a desired level, along with the resulting inevitable collapse of those prices
and with consequent investor losses. The occurrence of these patterns or practices could increase the volatility of our share price.
Provisions in our corporate charter documents
and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent
attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.
Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws
may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable,
including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. These provisions could also limit the price that
investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock.
In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate
or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to
replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:
| ● | our
board of directors is divided into three classes, one class of which is elected each year by our stockholders with the directors in each
class to serve for a three-year term; |
| ● | the
authorized number of directors can be changed only by resolution of our board of directors; |
|
● |
directors may be removed only by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least sixty percent (60%) of our voting stock, whether for cause or without cause; |
|
|
|
|
● |
our bylaws may be amended or repealed by our board of directors or by the affirmative vote of sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of our stockholders; |
|
|
|
|
● |
stockholders may not call special meetings of the stockholders or fill vacancies on the board of directors; |
| ● | our
board of directors will be authorized to issue, without stockholder approval, preferred stock, the rights of which will be determined
at the discretion of the board of directors and that, if issued, could operate as a “poison pill” to dilute the stock ownership
of a potential hostile acquirer to prevent an acquisition that our board of directors does not approve; |
| ● | our
stockholders do not have cumulative voting rights, and therefore our stockholders holding a majority of the shares of common stock outstanding
will be able to elect all of our directors; and |
| ● | our
stockholders must comply with advance notice provisions to bring business before or nominate directors for election at a stockholder
meeting. |
Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware,
we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess
of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction
in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed
manner.
Our Certificate of Incorporation and our
bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for certain types of state actions that
may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes
with us or our directors, officers, or employees.
Our Certificate of Incorporation and our bylaws
provide that, unless we consent to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive
forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of us, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary
duty owed by any of our directors, officers, or other employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action arising pursuant to any provision
of the DGCL or our certificate of incorporation or bylaws (as either may be amended from time to time), or (iv) any action asserting a
claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The exclusive forum provision does not apply to suits brought to enforce any liability
or duty created by the Securities Act or the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
To the extent that any such claims may be based upon federal law claims, Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction
over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Furthermore,
Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty
or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder.
These exclusive-forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s
ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, employees, control persons,
underwriters, or agents, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, employees, control persons, underwriters, or agents.
Additionally, a court could determine that the exclusive forum provision is unenforceable, and our stockholders will not be deemed to
have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. If a court were to find these provisions
of our bylaws inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur
additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition,
or results of operations.
If securities or industry analysts do not
publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will depend
in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. Securities and industry analysts
do not currently, and may never, publish research on our company. If no securities or industry analysts commence coverage of our company,
the trading price for our stock would likely be negatively impacted. In the event securities or industry analysts initiate coverage, if
one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our
stock price may decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly,
demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.
The warrants that we have issued are speculative
in nature.
The warrants that we have issued do not confer
any rights of common stock ownership on their holders except as otherwise provided in the warrants. Specifically, commencing on the date
of issuance, holders of the warrants may exercise their right to acquire the common stock and pay the exercise price to acquire the warrants.
There can be no assurance that the market value of the warrants will equal or exceed their public offering price. In the event our common
stock price does not exceed the exercise price of the warrants during the period when the warrants are exercisable, the warrants may not
have any value.
Holders of the warrants will have no rights
as a common stockholder except as otherwise provided in the warrants until they acquire our common stock.
Until holders of warrants acquire shares of our
common stock upon exercise of their warrants, they will have no rights with respect to shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise
of their warrant except as otherwise provided in the warrant. Upon exercise of a warrant, a holder will be entitled to exercise the rights
of a common stockholder as to the security exercised only as to matters for which the record date occurs after the exercise.
There is no established market for the warrants
issued in our follow-on offering and those issued prior to our initial public offering.
There is no established trading market for the
warrants issued in our follow-on offering and those issued prior to our initial public offering and we do not expect a market to develop.
We have not applied for the listing of such warrants on any national securities exchange or other trading market. Without an active trading
market, the liquidity of the warrants will be limited.
Provisions of the warrants issued in our
public offerings could discourage an acquisition of us by a third party.
In addition to the discussion of the provisions
of our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, certain provisions of the warrants offered in our public offerings could make it more
difficult or expensive for a third party to acquire us. The warrants prohibit us from engaging in certain transactions constituting “fundamental
transactions” unless, among other things, the surviving entity assumes our obligations under the warrants. These and other provisions
of the warrants could prevent or deter a third party from acquiring us even where the acquisition could be beneficial to you.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Not applicable.
Item 2. Properties.
On March 1, 2020, we entered into a sublease with
Purnovate, now our subsidiary and at the that time a related party, for the lease of three offices at 1180 Seminole Trail, Suite 495,
Charlottesville, VA 22901. The lease has a term of two years, and the monthly rent is $1,400. The lease is terminable on thirty (30) days
notice. On January 25, 2021, we acquired Purnovate. After the acquisition, the Company directly or through Purnovate operates a chemistry
and analytics laboratory in its 4,175 square feet leased laboratory and office space. On January 6, 2020, Purnovate entered a lease for
the Facility with a term of three (3) years. On January 19, 2021, Purnovate entered an amendment to this lease extending the lease until
January 31, 2026.
We believe that we have adequate space for our
anticipated needs and that suitable additional space will be available at commercially reasonable prices as needed.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
We are subject to claims and legal actions that
arise in the ordinary course of business from time to time. However, we are not currently subject to any claims or actions that we believe
would have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Information About our Executive Officers and Directors
Our business and affairs are organized under the
direction of our board of directors, which currently consists of seven members.
In accordance with the terms of our certificate
of incorporation, our board of directors is divided into three classes, as follows:
| ● | Class
II, which will consist of Tony Goodman, Robertson H. Gilliland, and Cary Claiborne, whose terms will expire at our annual meeting of
stockholders to be held in 2023; and |
| ● | Class
III, which will consist of J. Kermit Anderson and James W. Newman, Jr., whose terms will expire at our annual meeting of stockholders
to be held in 2024. |
| ● | Class
I, which will consist of William B. Stilley, III and Kevin Schuyler, whose term will expire at our annual meeting of stockholders to
be held in 2025; |
At each annual meeting of stockholders to be held
after the initial classification, the successors to directors whose terms then expire will serve until the third annual meeting following
their election and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. The authorized number of directors may be changed only by resolution
of the board of directors. Any additional directorships resulting from an increase in the number of directors will be distributed between
the three classes so that, as nearly as possible, each class will consist of one-third of the directors.
Set forth below are our directors and executive
officers and their respective ages and positions as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
Executive Officers and Directors |
|
Age |
|
|
Position(s) Held |
Cary J. Claiborne, MBA |
|
|
62 |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director |
Joseph Truluck, MBA |
|
|
44 |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer |
William B. Stilley, III, MBA |
|
|
55 |
|
|
Executive
Vice President, Director, and Chief Executive Officer of Purnovate, Inc. |
Bankole A. Johnson, DSc, MD |
|
|
62 |
|
|
Chief Medical Officer |
Robertson H. Gilliland, MBA |
|
|
42 |
|
|
Director |
Tony Goodman |
|
|
58 |
|
|
Director |
J. Kermit Anderson |
|
|
73 |
|
|
Director |
James W. Newman, Jr. |
|
|
80 |
|
|
Director |
Kevin Schuyler, MBA, CFA |
|
|
54 |
|
|
Director, Chairman of the Board, Lead Independent Director |
There are no family relationships among any of
our directors or executive officers. The executive officers and directors named above may act as authorized officers of the Company when
so deemed by resolutions of the Company. Set forth below is a summary of the business experience of each of our directors and executive
officers identified above and our key employee:
Cary J. Claiborne, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director
Cary J. Claiborne has served as our Chief Executive
Officer since August 18, 2022, our Chief Operating Officer from December 2021 to August 18, 2022 and a director since November 2021. In
December 2021, Mr. Claiborne was appointed to the board of directors of NeuroSense Therapeutics, a Nasdaq-listed clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focusing on the discovery and development of targeted innovative therapeutics for neurodegenerative diseases, where he also serves
as Chairman of the audit committee. In July 2022, Mr. Claiborne was appointed to the board of directors of LadRX Corporation (fka CytRx
Corporation), a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing new cancer therapeutics, where he also serves as Chairman
of the compensation committee.
Prior to joining Adial, Mr. Claiborne served as
CEO of Prosperity Capital Management, LLC, a Private Investment and Advisory firm that he founded.. Prosperity Capital is focused on private
Investment Management and providing Advisory Services to clients in multiple industries with an emphasis in the Pharma/Biotech and Finance
sectors. From November 2014 until February 2017, he served as the Chief Financial Officer and member of the Board of Directors at Indivior
PLC, a FTSE 500 listed specialty pharmaceutical company. Mr. Claiborne led the company’s spin off from its then parent company,
Reckitt Benckiser, to become an independent, listed company. While at Indivior, he established and oversaw corporate reporting, internal
audit, tax, treasury, external audit and information technology. Prior to joining Indivior, Mr. Claiborne served as the CFO of Sucampo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nasdaq-listed global biopharmaceutical company, which was later sold to Mallinckrodt. Before joining Sucampo,
Mr. Claiborne served as CFO and Corporate Secretary of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., and oversaw corporate finance during the company’s
initial public offering.
Mr. Claiborne graduated from Rutgers University
with a B.A. in Business Administration and from Villanova University with an M.B.A., and was a National Association of Corporate Directors
(NACD) Governance Fellow.
We selected Mr. Claiborne to serve on our board
of directors because he brings extensive public company experience and his broad understanding of the financial markets and the financing
opportunities available to us.
Joseph Truluck, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary
Joseph Truluck has served as our Chief Financial
Officer since June 2017, our Treasurer and Secretary since October 2017, and from May 2016 until his appointment as our Chief Operating
Officer, as our VP Operations and Finance. From January 2013 to December of 2019, Mr. Truluck served as the VP Operations and Finance
at Adenosine Therapeutics, LLC after the company reacquired its major drug development program. As VP Operations and Finance, at Adenosine
Therapeutics, Mr. Truluck oversaw the operations of the business, including seeing to completion a project to merge and analyze two partially
completed Phase 3 trials to constitute a single trial. From April 2005 to July 2009, Mr. Truluck served as the Operations Manager of Adenosine
Therapeutics’ until its purchase in August 2008 by Clinical Data. After the purchase of Adenosine Therapeutics’ operations
by Clinical Data, Mr. Truluck went on to gain an MBA from Tulane University with a concentration in Finance. In addition to his MBA at
Tulane, Mr. Truluck earned an MA in Philosophy at the University of Virginia, with a thesis in the philosophy of language.
William B. Stilley, III, Executive Vice President, Director, and Chief
Executive Officer of Purnovate, Inc.
William B. Stilley has served as an Executive Vice President for us
and the Chief Executive Officer of our wholly owned subsidiary, Purnovate, Inc., since January 26, 2021, our Chief Executive Officer from
December 2010 to August 18, 2022, our Secretary and Treasurer from April 2012 until October 2017 and a Director since April 2011. In July
2018, Mr. Stilley was appointed to serve as a member of the board of directors of Avalon GloboCare Corp., a Nasdaq-listed healthcare management
laboratory services provider and biotechnology developer, where he also serves as Chairman of their audit committee. From September 3,
2021, to October 31, 2022, he was a member of the board of directors of Sysorex, Inc., an OTCQB-traded data center owner and Ethereum
mining and technology company, where he was also Chairman of the audit committee. Prior to joining the Company from August 2008 until
December 2010, Mr. Stilley was the Vice President, Business Development & Strategic Projects at Clinical Data, Inc., a Nasdaq-listed
company. At Clinical Data, Inc., Mr. Stilley worked on licensing and M&A transactions and was involved in management of Phase 3 clinical
trials, production of Viibryd® for initial commercial launch of the product, and sourcing drug product and drug substance for the
Phase 3 clinical trials of the company’s vasodilator drug for myocardial stress imaging. From February 2002, Mr. Stilley was the
COO and CFO of Adenosine Therapeutics, LLC where he ran the internal operations of the company, including research and development, and
all financing activity, until the sale of its principal assets were acquired by Clinical Data, Inc. in August 2008. Deals closed include,
without limitation, financings, licenses or acquisition agreements with Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Santen Pharmaceuticals, Epix
Pharmaceuticals, CombinatoRx, ATEL Ventures, Medical Predictive Sciences Corporation, Novartis Ventures, and numerous public equity investment
firms. Mr. Stilley has advised both public and private companies on financing and M&A transactions, has been the interim CFO of a
public company, the interim Chief Business Officer of Diffusion Pharmaceuticals, and the COO and CFO of a number of private companies.
Before entering the business community, Mr. Stilley served as Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps.
Mr. Stilley has an MBA with honors from the Darden
School of Business and a B.S. in Commerce/Marketing from the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia. He has guest lectured
at the Darden School of Business in two courses on the management of life science companies and, until recently, served on the board of
directors of Virginia BIO, the statewide biotechnology organization. Mr. Stilley holds two United States patents and 60 patents issued
worldwide.
We selected Mr. Stilley to serve on our board
of directors because he brings to the board extensive knowledge of the biotechnology industry. Having served in senior corporate positions
in several biomedical companies, he has a vast knowledge of the industry and brings to the board significant executive leadership, strategic,
and operational experience as well as knowledge and experience of financing and M&A transactions, including serving as the Chairman
of public company audit committees. His business experience provides him with a broad understanding of the operational, financial and
strategic issues facing public companies and his extensive knowledge financing and M&A will serve our company well in the future.
Bankole A. Johnson, D.Sc., M.D., Chief Medical
Officer
Bankole Johnson has served as our Chief Medical
Officer since March 24, 2019. Dr. Johnson also served as the Chairman of our Board from November 2010 until March 24, 2019. Dr. Johnson
is a world-leading neuroscientist and a pioneer in the development of medications for the treatment of alcohol abuse and is the inventor
of all patents covering AD04. In August 2013, he was appointed Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Maryland
School of Medicine and also leads the Brain Science Research Consortium Unit at the University of Maryland, a position he held until March
2019 to devote greater focus to his new duties with us. Previously, from 2004 until August 2013, he served as Alumni Professor and Chairman
of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Dr. Johnson graduated in Medicine from Glasgow
University in 1982 and trained in Psychiatry at the Royal London and Maudsley and Bethlem Royal Hospitals. Additional to his medical degree,
he trained in research at the Institute of Psychiatry (University of London) and conducted studies in neuropsychopharmacology for his
doctoral thesis (degree from Glasgow University) on the Medical Research Council unit at Oxford University. In 2004, Dr. Johnson earned
his Doctor of Science degree in Medicine from Glasgow University — the highest degree that can be granted in science by a British
university. His primary area of research expertise is the psychopharmacology of medications for treating addictions.
Dr. Johnson is a licensed physician and board-certified
psychiatrist throughout Europe and in the U.S. He is the Principal Investigator on National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded research
studies utilizing neuroimaging, neuropharmacology, and molecular genetics techniques. Dr. Johnson’s clinical expertise is in the
fields of addiction, biological, and forensic psychiatry. Honors include service on numerous NIH review and other committees including
special panels.
Dr. Johnson was the 2001 recipient of the Dan
Anderson Research Award for his “distinguished contribution as a researcher who has advanced the scientific knowledge of addiction
recovery.” He received the Distinguished Senior Scholar of Distinction Award in 2002 from the National Medical Association. Dr.
Johnson also was an inductee of the Texas Hall of Fame in 2003 for contributions to science, mathematics, and technology, and in 2006
he received the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) Distinguished Psychiatrist Lecturer Award. In 2007, he was named
as a Fellow in the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and in 2008 he was elected to the status of Distinguished Fellow of the APA. In 2009,
he received the APA’s Solomon Carter Fuller Award, honoring an individual who has pioneered in an area that has benefited significantly
the quality of life for Black people. In 2010, he was named as a Fellow in the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. Dr. Johnson
is Field Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Psychiatry, serves on the Editorial Board of The American Journal of Psychiatry, and reviews
for over 30 journals in pharmacology, neuroscience, and the addictions. He has over 200 publications. Dr. Johnson also has edited three
books: Drug Addiction and Its Treatment: Nexus of Neuroscience and Behavior, Handbook of Clinical Alcoholism Treatment, and Addiction
Medicine: Science and Practice, one of the foremost reference textbooks in the field.
Dr. Johnson has served as a consultant to Johnson
& Johnson (Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC), Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D&A Pharma, Organon, Adial Corporation,
Psychological Education Publishing Company (PEPCo LLC), and Eli Lilly and Company. He also has served on the Extramural Advisory Board
for NIAAA (2004-present), the National Advisory Council for NIDA (2004-2007), the Medications Development Subcommittee of NIDA’s
Advisory Council on Drug Abuse (2004-2007), and the Medications Development Scientific Advisory Board for NIDA (2005-2009). In addition,
he has been the recipient of research grant support from both NIAAA and NIDA.
Robertson H. Gilliland, MBA, Director
Mr. Gilliland has served as a director since
September 2014. Since May 2020, Mr. Gilliland has served as an independent consultant to family offices, with specific
focus on investment strategy formulation and governance. From July 2013 until April 2020, he was Principal and Chief Financial
Officer at Keller Enterprises, LLC, a family office that invests and manages private capital. In addition to his duties as CFO, as a principal,
Mr. Gilliland sourced, vetted and managed a variety of private direct investments and spearheaded internal strategic initiatives.
Prior to joining Keller Enterprises, Mr. Gilliland attended business school beginning in 2011 and was previously a Director at the
Brunswick Group, where he specialized in strategic communications and investor relations around mergers and acquisitions, including being
an advisor on the Pfizer-Wyeth, Celgene-Pharmion, and Mylan-Merck KGaA Generic transactions. During his tenure at Brunswick, Mr. Gilliland
worked on over 35 multi-billion dollar M&A transactions. He has his MBA from the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business,
where he graduated with honors.
We selected Mr. Gilliland to serve on our
board of directors because he brings extensive knowledge of the financial markets. Mr. Gilliland’s business background provides
him with a broad understanding of the financial markets and the financing opportunities available to us.
Tony Goodman, Director
Tony Goodman has served as a director since July
2017. Mr. Goodman’s career spans over 23 years in Pharma and Biotech. Mr. Goodman is the Founder/Managing Director of Keswick Group,
LLC, a Biotech Strategic Commercial and Business Development Advisory Firm. From October 2014 until February 2017, he served as the Chief
Business Development Officer of Indivior PLC, a FTSE 500 listed company and a member of the executive team which brought Indivior public
as a demerger from Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mr. Goodman held many leadership positions at Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
from October 2009 until October 2014 that include: Global Director, Strategy and Commercial Development; Global Head, Category Development;
and Director of US Commercial Managed Care. Mr. Goodman has also served as the Director of Strategic Marketing and Business Development
at PRA International and Group Product Manager, Marketing and Director of the Managed Health Strategies Group at Purdue Pharmaceuticals
L.P. Mr. Goodman graduated from Marshall University, with a degree in Business Administration and completed the requirements of a Full
Board Executive with the National Association of Corporate Directors (“NACD”).
We selected Mr. Goodman to serve on our board
of directors because he brings extensive knowledge of the addiction and pharmaceuticals industry and his significant strategic development
experience. Mr. Goodman’s experience with the NACD provides him with a broad understanding of the role of directors and corporate
governance issues facing public companies. J. Kermit Anderson, Director
J. Kermit Anderson, Director
J. Kermit Anderson has served as a director since
February 2015. He has served as the VP and Chief Financial Officer at Cumberland Development Co. since 2007. Cumberland is a privately
held company which evaluates and oversees investments in minerals exploration, life sciences, and real estate for a family office. Mr. Anderson
has over forty years of experience in financial and development roles for a number of companies. He holds widely diversified experience
in financial planning and reporting, accounting, forecasting, pricing, GAAP reporting and contract negotiations including benefits and
compensation. His career is split almost equally between public and private companies including major sales and acquisitions. He has held
various positions in energy businesses including Massey Energy, AMVEST and Cumberland Resources Corporation working on the sale of the
companies for the last two roles. Mr. Anderson has worked extensively on startups for Massey and AMVEST including the move to a new
business area with AMVEST. He received his BS -BA from West Virginia University in 1972.
We selected Mr. Anderson to serve on our
board of directors because he brings extensive industry experience in corporate development and finance. His prior service with other
public companies provides experience related to good corporate governance practices.
James W. Newman, Jr., Director
James W. Newman, Jr. has served as a director
since September 2014. Since April 2013, he served as the Founder, Chairman, and President of Medical Predictive Science Corporation
(“MPSC”), a medical device company that translates ICU research discoveries to the patient’s bedside and develops predictive
technology that detects imminent, catastrophic illness. MPSC’s HeRO sold in over 20 countries and is a pioneering monitoring system
for premature infants which detects early signs of distress commonly caused by infection and other potentially life -threatening illnesses.
He has also served as part of the management team of Newman Company, a real estate company, since 1980, for which he still works and is
the sole owner. In the mid — 1990s he began making capital investments in several “start-up” companies, including Charlottesville-based Medical
Automation Systems, a major provider of information management systems for point-of-care testing, which was acquired by Massachusetts-based Alere
Inc. in 2011. His investments have covered a wide range of fields, encompassing everything from biotechnology, bio-informatics, education,
and telecommunications, as well as mechanical inventions. He is particularly interested in investments in the medical field that improve
healthcare, but do so at a reduced cost to consumers. Mr. Newman received a B.A. degree from Upsala College in 1968.
We selected Mr. Newman to serve on our board
of directors because he brings a strong business background to our company and adds significant strategic, business and financial experience.
Mr. Newman’s business and finance background provides him with a broad understanding of the issues faced by companies similar
to us.
Kevin Schuyler, CFA, Chairman of the Board
of Directors, Lead Independent Director
Kevin Schuyler has served as our non-executive Chairman
of the Board since August 2022, our director since April 2016 and is our Lead Independent Director. From April 2016 to
August 2022, he served as our Vice Chairman of the board of directors. He currently serves as a director of Twin Vee PowerCats Co.,
a Nasdaq-listed designer, manufacturer, distributor, and marketer of power sport catamaran boats based in Fort Pierce, Florida for
over 27 years, where he also serves as Chairman of the audit committee, and a director of ForzaX1, Inc, a Nasdaq-listed developer
of electric sport boats with a mission to inspire the adoption of sustainable recreational boating, where he also serves as Chairman of
the audit committee. Mr. Schuyler is also senior managing director at CornerStone Partners, a full-service institutional CIO
and investment office located in Charlottesville, Virginia, with approximately $13 billion under management. Prior to joining CornerStone
Partners in 2006, he held various positions with McKinsey & Company, Louis Dreyfus Corporation and The Nature Conservancy. Mr. Schuyler
serves on various boards and committees of Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital, the US Endowment for Forestry and Communities, and Stone
Barns Center. He is a member of the investment committee of the Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies. Mr. Schuyler graduated with
honors from Harvard College and received his MBA from The Darden Graduate School of Business at the University of Virginia. He is a member
of the Chartered Financial Analyst Society of Washington, DC.
We selected Mr. Schuyler to serve on our
board of directors because he brings extensive knowledge of the financial markets. Mr. Schuyler’s business background provides
him with a broad understanding of the financial markets and the financing opportunities available to us.
Board Composition and Election of Directors
Our board of directors consists of seven members:
Messrs. Kermit Anderson, Robertson Gilliland, Tony Goodman, James Newman, Kevin Schuyler, Cary Claiborne, and William Stilley. Our board
of directors has undertaken a review of its composition and its committees and the independence of each director. Based upon information
requested from and provided by each director concerning his or her background, employment and affiliations, including family relationships,
our board of directors has determined that each of Messrs. Kermit Anderson, Robertson Gilliland, Tony Goodman, James Newman, and Kevin
Schuyler is “independent” under the applicable rules of the SEC and Nasdaq and that Mr. Stilley is not “independent”
as defined under such rules. In making such determination, our board of directors considered the relationship that each such non-employee
director has with our company and all other facts and circumstances that our board of directors deemed relevant in determining his independence,
including the beneficial ownership of our capital stock by each non-employee director. Messrs. Claiborne and Stilley are not independent
directors under these rules because they our Chief Executive Officer and President and our Chief Executive Officer of Purnovate, respectively
and Mr. Goodman is not an independent director due to the consulting arrangement that we entered into with him in March 2023.
Corporate Governance
Board Committees
Our board of directors has established an Audit
Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. From time to time, the Board of Directors may
also establish ad hoc committees to address particular matters.
Audit Committee
The members of our Audit Committee are Messrs.
Schuyler, Newman, and Anderson each of whom has been determined by our board of directors to be independent under applicable Nasdaq and
SEC rules and regulations. Mr. Schuyler is the chair of the Audit Committee. Our Audit Committee’s responsibilities include, among
others:
| ● | appointing,
approving the compensation of, and assessing the independence of our registered public accounting firm; |
| ● | overseeing
the work of our independent registered public accounting firm, including through the receipt and consideration of reports from that firm; |
| ● | reviewing
and discussing with management and our independent registered public accounting firm our annual and quarterly financial statements and
related disclosures; |
| ● | monitoring
our internal control over financial reporting, disclosure controls and procedures; |
| ● | overseeing
our internal audit function; |
| ● | discussing
our risk management policies; |
| ● | establishing
policies regarding hiring employees from our independent registered public accounting firm and procedures for the receipt and retention
of accounting related complaints and concerns; |
| ● | meeting
independently with our internal auditing staff, if any, our independent registered public accounting firm and management; |
| ● | reviewing
and approving or ratifying any related person transactions; and |
| ● | preparing
the Audit Committee report required by Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, rules. |
All audit and non-audit services, other than de
minimis non-audit services, to be provided to us by our independent registered public accounting firm must be approved in advance
by our Audit Committee.
Our board of directors has determined that Mr.
Schuyler is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in applicable SEC rules.
Compensation Committee
The members of our Compensation Committee are
Messrs. Anderson and Newman, each of whom has been determined by our board of directors to be independent under current Nasdaq rules and
regulations. Mr. Anderson is the chair of the Compensation Committee. Our Compensation Committee’s responsibilities include, among
others:
| ● | reviewing
and approving annually the corporate goals and objectives applicable to the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer, evaluating at
least annually the Chief Executive Officer’s performance in light of those goals and objectives, and determining and approving
the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation level based on this evaluation; |
| ● | reviewing
and approving the compensation of all other executive officers; |
| ● | reviewing
and approving and, when appropriate, recommending to the board of directors for approval, incentive compensation plans and equity-based
plans, and where appropriate or required, recommending for approval by the stockholders of the Company, the adoption, amendment or termination
of such plans; and administering such plans; |
| ● | reviewing
and approving the executive compensation information included in our annual report on Form 10-K and proxy statement; |
| ● | reviewing
and approving or providing recommendations with respect to any employment agreements or severance arrangements or plans; and |
| ● | reviewing
director compensation and recommending any changes to the board of directors. |
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
The members of our Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee are Messrs. Gilliland, and Schuyler, each of whom has been determined by our board of directors to be independent under current
Nasdaq rules. Mr. Gilliland is the chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee’s responsibilities include, among others:
| ● | identifying
and recommending candidates to fill vacancies on the board of directors and for election by the stockholders; |
| ● | recommending
committee and chairperson assignments for directors to the board of directors; |
| ● | developing,
subject to the board of directors’ approval, a process for an annual evaluation of the board of directors and its committees and
to oversee the conduct of this annual evaluation; |
| ● | overseeing
the Company’s corporate governance practices, including reviewing and recommending to the board of directors for approval any changes
to the documents and policies in the Company’s corporate governance framework, including its certificate of incorporation and bylaws;
and |
| ● | monitoring
compliance with the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, investigating alleged breaches or violations thereof and enforcing
its provisions. |
Board of Directors Leadership Structure
We currently have a separate lead independent
director. Our lead independent director is Kevin Schuyler. In that role, he presides over the executive sessions of the board of directors,
during which our independent directors meet without management, and he serves as the principal liaison between management and the independent
directors of the board of directors. We do not have a formal policy regarding having a separate lead independent director. Our board of
directors has determined its leadership structure is appropriate and effective for us, given our stage of development.
Risk Oversight
Our board of directors monitors our exposure to
a variety of risks through our Audit Committee. Our Audit Committee charter gives the Audit Committee responsibilities and duties that
include discussing with management, the internal audit department and the independent auditors our major financial risk exposures and
the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, including our risk assessment and risk management policies.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a code of business conduct and
ethics that applies to all of our employees, officers, and directors, including those officers responsible for financial reporting. These
standards are designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote honest and ethical conduct. The code of business conduct and ethics and the
written charter for the audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and corporate governance committee are available on our
website. The information that appears on our website is not part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
None of our directors or executive officers, nor
any associate of such individual, is involved in a legal proceeding adverse to us.
If we make any substantive amendments to the code
of business conduct and ethics or grant any waiver from a provision of the code to any executive officer or director, we will promptly
disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver on our website. We will promptly disclose on our website (i) the nature of any amendment
to the policy that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller,
or persons performing similar functions and (ii) the nature of any waiver, including an implicit waiver, from a provision of the policy
that is granted to one of these specified individuals, the name of such person who is granted the waiver and the date of the waiver.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth the information
as to compensation paid to or earned by our executive officers during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 whose total compensation
did exceed $100,000. The persons listed in the following table are referred to herein as the “named executive officers.”
Name and Principal Position | |
Fiscal Year | | |
Salary | | |
Bonuses | | |
Option & Stock Award(s) | | |
All Other Compensation | | |
Total | |
Cary Claiborne | |
| 2022 | | |
$ | 356,722 | | |
$ | — | (1) | |
$ | 600,862 | (2) | |
$ | 58,354 | (3) | |
$ | 1,015,938 | |
Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Board of Directors | |
| 2021 | | |
$ | 15,200 | (4) | |
$ | — | | |
$ | 447,650 | (5) | |
$ | 3,913 | (6) | |
$ | 466,763 | |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
Joseph A. M. Truluck | |
| 2022 | | |
$ | 267,500 | | |
$ | — | (7) | |
$ | 162,920 | (8) | |
$ | 12,200 | (9) | |
$ | 442,620 | |
Chief Financial Officer | |
| 2021 | | |
$ | 248,750 | | |
$ | 45,500 | (10) | |
$ | 316,435 | (11) | |
$ | 13,839 | (12) | |
$ | 624,524 | |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
William B. Stilley | |
| 2022 | | |
$ | 363,611 | | |
$ | — | (13) | |
$ | 166,666 | (14) | |
$ | 61,299 | (15) | |
$ | 591,576 | |
Executive Vice President, Member of the board of Directors, and Chief
Executive Officer of Purnovate, Inc. | |
| 2021 | | |
$ | 408,750 | | |
$ | 114,800 | (16) | |
$ | 632,870 | (17) | |
$ | 71,436 | (18) | |
$ | 1,227,856 | |
(1) | According
to the terms of Mr. Claiborne’s executive agreement, he is eligible to receive a bonus of 40% of his base salary for service as
CEO during 2022. The Company has accordingly recognized $180,000 in accrued expenses associated with Mr. Claiborne’s service for
the year ended December 31, 2022. However, at the date of this filing, no bonus for 2022 has been paid and the amount of any such bonus
to be paid in the future remains at the discretion of the Board of Directors. |
(2) | Includes
the value of 1,000,000 shares issued on August 18, 2022 on accession as CEO with a market value on issue of $0.59 per share. Also includes
the fair value of 6,667 options to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.63 per share issued for service as a director
on November 2, 2021 at a fair value of $2.53 per option. All options vest over a three year period from grant date. Fair value computed
in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. |
(3) | Includes
(i) the payment of $20,433 of medical and dental insurance premiums, (ii) $12,200 of matched 401(k) contributions, $24,913 cash fee for
services as a Director, and (iv) $808 of reimbursed telephone expenses. |
(4) | Mr.
Claiborne began his service as COO on December 8, 2021. |
(5) | Includes
the fair value of 60,000 options to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.15 per share issued for service as a director
on November 2, 2021 at a fair value of $2.53 per option and 130,000 options to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of
$2.64 per share issued on December 7, 2021 at a fair value of $2.28 per option. All options vest over a three year period from grant
date. Fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. |
(6) | All
other compensation for Mr. Claiborne is comprised of cash fee for services as a Director of $3,913. |
(7) | According
to the terms of Mr. Truluck’s executive agreement, he is eligible to receive a bonus of 25% of his base salary for service as CEO
during 2022. The Company has accordingly recognized $67,500 in accrued expenses associated with Mr. Truluck’s service for the year
ended December 31, 2022. However, at the date of this filing, no bonus for 2022 has been paid and the amount of any such bonus to be
paid in the future remains at the discretion of the Board of Directors. |
(8) | Includes
the fair value of 100,000 options to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.15 per share issued on February 23, 2022
at a fair value of $1.63 per option. Options vest over a three year period from grant date. Fair value computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718. |
(9) | Comprised
of $12,200 in matched 401(k) contributions. |
(10) | Consisting
of a cash performance bonus payment of $45,500 fully earned in 2021 and paid in 2022. |
(11) | Represents
the fair value of 125,000 options to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.11 per share issued on February 8, 2021
at a fair value of approximately $2.53 per option. Options vest over a three year period from grant date. Fair value computed in accordance
with FASB ASC Topic 718. |
(12) | Comprised
of $13,839 in matched 401(k) contributions. |
(13) | According
to the terms of Mr. Stilley’s executive agreement, he is eligible to receive a bonus of 40% of his base salary for service as CEO
during 2022. The Company has accordingly recognized $90,000 in accrued expenses associated with Mr. Stilley’s service for the year
ended December 31, 2022. However, at the date of this filing, no bonus for 2022 has been paid and the amount of any such bonus to be
paid in the future remains at the discretion of the Board of Directors. |
(14) | Includes
the value of 83,333 shares issued on February 23, 2022 with a market value on issue of $2.00 per share as a discretionary bonus. An additional
166,667 shares were originally granted on the same day at the same value per share but were cancelled on December 30, 2022 at Mr. Stilley’s
will. Fair value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. |
(15) | Includes
(i) the payment of $24,700 of medical and dental insurance premiums and HSA contributions, (ii) $8,702 of matched 401(k) contributions,
$27,000 cash fee for services as a Director, and (iv) $897 of reimbursed telephone expenses. |
(16) | Bonuses
for Mr. Stilley were comprised of cash performance bonus payment of $114,800 earned in 2021 and paid in 2022. |
(17) | Includes
the fair value of 250,000 options to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of $3.11 per share issued on February 8, 2021
at a fair value of $2.53 per option. Options vest over a three year period from grant date. Fair value computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718. |
(18) | All
other compensation for Mr. Stilley is comprised of (i) a contribution by our company to an HSA ($8,004); (ii) the payment by our company
of insurance premiums including life, dental, vision ($28,245); (iii) matched 401(k) contributions ($11,187); and (iv) cash fee for services
as a Director ($24,000). |
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End (December 31, 2022)
The following table provides information about
the number of outstanding equity awards held by each of our named executive officers as of December 31, 2022:
Option Awards | |
Stock Awards | |
Name | |
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (Exercisable) | | |
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (Unexercisable) | | |
Option Exercise Price | | |
Option Expiration Date | | |
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares That Have Not Vested | | |
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares That Have Not Vested | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Cary Claiborne | |
| 25,000 | | |
| 35,000 | (6) | |
$ | 3.15 | | |
| 11/1/31 | | |
| | | |
| | |
Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Board of Directors | |
| 46,944 | | |
| 83,056 | (7) | |
$ | 2.64 | | |
| 12/7/31 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| 2,037 | | |
| 4,630 | (8) | |
| 2.00 | | |
| 2/23/22 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
Joseph Truluck | |
| 30,132 | | |
| — | (1) | |
$ | 5.70 | | |
| 6/30/2027 | | |
| | | |
| | |
Chief Financial Officer | |
| 180,000 | | |
| — | (2) | |
$ | 3.39 | | |
| 3/9/2029 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| 188,889 | | |
| 11,111 | (3) | |
$ | 1.44 | | |
| 3/3/2030 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| 79,861 | | |
| 45,139 | (5) | |
| 3.11 | | |
| 2/8/31 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| 30,556 | | |
| 69,444 | (8) | |
| 2.00 | | |
| 2/23/22 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
William B. Stilley | |
| 57,471 | | |
| — | (1) | |
$ | 5.70 | | |
| 6/30/2027 | | |
| | | |
| | |
Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Board of Directors | |
| 500,000 | | |
| — | (2) | |
$ | 3.39 | | |
| 3/9/2029 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| 434,444 | | |
| 25,556 | (3) | |
$ | 1.44 | | |
| 3/3/2030 | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |
| 159,722 | | |
| 90,278 | (5) | |
| 3.11 | | |
| 2/8/31 | | |
| | | |
| | |
(1) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, June 30, 2017, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. At the date of this filing, these grants are fully vested. |
(2) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, March 9, 2019, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. At the date of this filing, these grants are fully vested. |
(3) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, March 3, 2020, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. |
(4) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, March 25, 2019, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. |
(5) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, February 8, 2021, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. |
(6) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, November 2, 2021, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. |
(7) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, December 7, 2021, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. |
(8) |
One thirty-sixth (1/36) of these options vested on the date of grant, February 23, 2022, with an additional one thirty-sixth vesting on the first day of each subsequent month. |
Employment Agreements and Consulting Agreement
Employment Agreements
We are currently a party to employment agreements
with each of Messrs. Claiborne, Truluck, and Stilley.
In connection with the
appointment of Mr. Claiborne as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, we and Mr. Claiborne entered into a three-year employment agreement
(the “Claiborne Employment Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Claiborne Employment Agreement, Mr. Claiborne received
an annual base salary of $304,000, had a target bonus opportunity equal to 25% of his base salary and devoted no less than 80% of his
business time to the affairs of the Company. On August 22, 2022, Mr. Claiborne was appointed Chief Executive Officer by the Board of Directors,
at which time his employment agreement was amended to increase his annual base salary to $450,000 and Mr. Claiborne agreed to devote substantially
all his business time to the affairs of the Company. On execution of this agreement, Mr. Claiborne was also granted one million shares
of common stock, said shares vesting monthly over a three year period. Mr. Claiborne’s annual salary is subject to increase at the
discretion of the Board. The Board may, in its discretion, pay a portion of Mr. Claiborne’s annual bonus in the form of cash or
equity or equity-based awards (or any combination thereof). Mr. Claiborne is also subject to certain restrictive covenants, including
a non-competition (applicable during employment and for 24 months thereafter), customer non-solicitation and employee and independent
contractor non-solicitation (each applicable during employment and for 12 months thereafter), as well as confidentiality (applicable during
employment and 7 years thereafter) and non-disparagement restrictions (applicable during employment and at all times thereafter).
Effective upon the closing of the initial public
offering, we entered into a three -year employment agreement with Joseph Truluck to serve as our Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
Officer (the “Truluck EA”), which agreement was amended on February 12, 2021 to extend the term of the agreement to March
31, 2026. Under the Truluck EA, Mr. Truluck devotes no less than 50% of his business time to the affairs of our company, which was increased
to 75% on February 12, 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the Truluck EA, as amended on March 10, 2019 to increase his salary to $150,000
per annum and further amended on March 3, 2020 to increase his salary to ($170,000 per annum) and further amended on February 23, 2022,
he receives an annual salary of $270,000 and has a target bonus opportunity equal 25% of his salary. Mr. Truluck’s annual salary
is subject to increase at the discretion of our board of directors. Our board of directors may, in its discretion, pay a portion of Mr.
Truluck’s annual bonus in the form of equity or equity -based compensation. Mr. Truluck is also subject to certain restrictive covenants,
including a non -competition (applicable during employment and for 24 months thereafter), customer non -solicitation and employee and
independent contractor non -solicitation (each applicable during employment and for 12 months thereafter), as well as confidentiality
(applicable during employment and 7 years thereafter) and non -disparagement restrictions (applicable during employment and at all times
thereafter).
Effective upon the closing of our initial public
offering, we entered into a five -year employment agreement with Mr. Stilley to serve as our Chief Executive Officer, which agreement
was amended on February 12, 2021 to extend the term of the agreement to March 31, 2026 (the “Stilley EA”). Under the Stilley
EA, as amended on March 10, 2019 to increase his salary to $400,000 and further amended on February 12, 2021 and March 17, 2021, Mr. Stilley
will receive an annual salary of $410,000 and has a target bonus opportunity equal to 40% of his salary. Mr. Stilley’s annual salary
will be subject to increase at the discretion of our board of directors. On August 22, 2023, Mr. Stilley was appointed by the Board to
be Chief Executive Officer of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Purnovate, Inc. At this time his employment agreement was amended
to make his annual salary equal to $260,000, which is to be increased to $430,000 at such time as Purnovate’s cash on hand is equal
to three million dollars or more. Our board of directors may, in its discretion, pay a portion of Mr. Stilley’s annual bonus in
the form of equity or equity-based compensation, provided that commencing with the year following the year in which a Change of Control
(as defined in the Stilley EA) occurs, Mr. Stilley’s annual bonus will be paid in cash. Mr. Stilley will also subject to certain
restrictive covenants, including a non-competition (applicable during employment and for 24 months thereafter), customer non-solicitation
and employee and independent contractor non -solicitation (each applicable during employment and for 12 months thereafter), as well as
confidentiality (applicable during employment and 7 years thereafter) and non-disparagement restrictions (applicable during employment
and at all times thereafter).
In the event that Mr. Claiborne’s, Mr. Truluck’s,
or Mr. Stilley’s (each an “Executive”) employment is terminated by us other than for Cause, or upon his resignation
for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in the Employment Agreement), the Executive will be entitled to any unpaid bonus earned in
the year prior to the termination, a pro -rata portion of the bonus earned during the year of termination, continuation of base salary
for 12 months in the case of Mr. Claiborne, 6 months in the case of Mr. Truluck, and 12 months for Mr. Stilley, plus 12 months of COBRA
premium reimbursement. If Mr. Stilley’s termination occurs within 60 days before or within 24 months following a Change of Control,
then Mr. Stilley will be entitled to receive the same severance benefits as provided above except he will receive (a) a payment equal
to two times the sum of his base salary and the higher of his target annual bonus opportunity and the bonus payment he received for the
year immediately preceding the year in which the termination occurred instead of 12 months of base salary continuation and (b) 24 times
the monthly COBRA premium for himself and his eligible dependents instead of 12 months of COBRA reimbursements (the payments in clauses
(a) and (b) are paid in a lump sum in some cases and partly in a lump sum and partly in installments over 12 months in other cases). In
addition, if Mr. Stilley’s employment is terminated by us without Cause or by the him for Good Reason, in either case, upon or within
24 months following a Change of Control, then he will be entitled to full vesting of all equity awards received by him from us (with any
equity awards that are subject to the satisfaction of performance goals deemed earned at not less than target performance).
In the event that the Executive’s employment
is terminated due to his death or Disability, the Executive (or his estate) will be entitled to any unpaid bonus earned in the year prior
to the termination, a pro-rata portion of the bonus earned during the year of termination, 12 months of COBRA premium reimbursement and
accelerated vesting of (a) all equity awards received in payment of base salary or an annual bonus and (b) with respect to any other equity
award, the greater of the portion of the unvested equity award that would have become vested within 12 months after the termination date
had no termination occurred and the portion of the unvested equity award that is subject to accelerated vesting (if any) upon such termination
under the applicable equity plan or award agreement (with performance goals deemed earned at not less than target performance, and with
any equity award that is in the form of a stock option or stock appreciation right to remain outstanding and exercisable for 12 months
following the termination date or, if longer, such period as provided under the applicable equity plan or award agreement (but in no event
beyond the expiration date of the applicable option or stock appreciation right).
All severance payments to the Executives will
be subject to the execution and non-revocation of a release of claims by the Executive or his estate, as applicable.
For purpose of each of the Claiborne EA, Truluck
EA, and Stilley EA, “Good Reason” is defined as the occurrence of any of the following events without the respective Executive’s
consent: (i) a material reduction in the Executive’s duties, responsibilities or authority; (ii) a reduction of the Executive’s
base salary; (iii) failure or refusal of a successor to us to either materially assume our obligations under the employment agreement
or enter into a new employment agreement with the Executive on terms that are materially similar to those provided under this Agreement,
in any case, in the event of a Change of Control; (iv) relocation of the Executive’s primary work location that results in an increase
in the Executive’s one -way driving distance by more than twenty -five (25) miles from the Executive’s then -current principal
residence; or (v) a material breach of the employment agreement by us.
For purposes of the Claiborne EA, Truluck EA,
and Stilley EA, “Cause” is defined as that the Executive shall have engaged in any of the following acts or that any of the
following events shall have occurred, all as determined by the board of directors in its sole and absolute discretion: (i) conviction
for, or entering of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (or its equivalent under any applicable legal system) with respect to (A) a felony
or (B) any crime involving moral turpitude; (ii) commission of fraud, misrepresentation, embezzlement or theft against any person; (iii)
engaging in any intentional activity that injures or would reasonably be expected to injure (monetarily or otherwise), in any material
respect, the reputation, the business or a business relationship of the Company or any of its affiliates; (iv) gross negligence or willful
misconduct in the performance of the Executive’s duties to us or its affiliates under this Agreement, or willful refusal or failure
to carry out the lawful instructions of the board of directors that are consistent with the Executive’s title and position; (v)
violation of any fiduciary duty owed to us or any of its affiliates; or (vi) breach of any restrictive covenant (as defined) or material
breach or violation of any other provision of the employment agreement, of a written policy or code of conduct of our company or any of
our affiliates (as in effect from time to time) or any other agreement between the Executive and we or any of our affiliates. Except when
such acts constituting Cause which, by their nature, cannot reasonably be expected to be cured, the Executive will have twenty (20) days
following the delivery of written notice by the Company of its intention to terminate the Executive’s employment for Cause within
which to cure any acts constituting Cause. Following such twenty (20) day cure period, and if the reason stated in the notice is not cured,
the Executive shall be given five (5) business days prior written notice to appear (with or without counsel) before the full Board for
the opportunity to present information regarding his views on the alleged Cause event. After we provide the original notice of our intent
to terminate Executive’s employment for Cause, we may suspend the Executive, with pay, from all his duties and responsibilities
and prevent him from accessing our or our affiliates premises or contacting any of our personal or any of our affiliates until a final
determination on the hearing is made. The Executive will not be terminated for Cause until a majority of the independent directors approve
such termination following the hearing.
For the purposes of each of the Claiborne EA,
Truluck EA, and Stilley EA, “Change of Control” is defined as: (i) the accumulation over a twelve (12) month period, whether
directly or indirectly, by any individual, entity or group of our securities representing over fifty (50%) percent of the total voting
power of all our then outstanding voting securities; (ii) a merger or consolidation of us in which our voting securities immediately prior
to the merger or consolidation do not represent, or are not converted into securities that represent, a majority of the voting power of
all voting securities of the surviving entity immediately after the merger or consolidation; (iii) a sale of substantially all of our
assets; or (iv) during any period of twelve (12) consecutive months, our current directors, together with any new director whose election
by the board of directors or nomination for election by the Company’s stockholders was approved by a vote of at least a majority
of the directors then still in office, cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the board of directors.
Consulting Agreements
On March 24, 2019, we entered into a three-year
consulting agreement with Bankole Johnson. Dr. Johnson’s consulting agreement with us (the “Johnson Consulting Agreement”)
provides that Dr. Johnson will serve as our Chief Medical Officer and devote 75% of his working time to our business and affairs and will
receive: (i) an annual fee of $375,000 a year; (ii) a signing bonus of $250,000 (which he received); and (iii) an option to purchase 250,000
shares of our common stock. The shares of common stock underlying the option award vests pro rata on a monthly basis over a thirty-six
month period. The options are exercisable for a period of ten years from the date of grant and have an exercise price of $3.01 per share.
On March 22, 2022, the agreement was extended for an additional three year term, to expire on March 21, 2025 and to be terminable by either
party for any reason on 30 days notice. On September 8, 2022, the agreement was further amended to increase the annual fee due Dr. Johnson
to $435,000 and to grant Dr. a number of bonuses in cash and equity, contingent on achieving certain milestones.
The Johnson Consulting Agreement may be terminated
by us upon Dr. Johnson’s death, upon thirty days’ notice for a material breach of the Consulting Agreement by Dr. Johnson
that can be cured, after notice of breach and failure to cure; upon notice for a breach of the Consulting Agreement by Dr. Johnson that
cannot be cured; upon thirty days’ notice for any other cause.
On March 15, 2023, we entered into a nine month
consulting agreement with Tony Goodman (the “Goodman Consulting Agreement”), one of our directors. Pursuant to the terms of
the Goodman Consulting Agreement, Mr. Goodman is to receive a cash payment of $22,000 per month and will receive a grant of 100,000 shares
of Common Stock upon consummation of a partnering transaction if such transaction is consummated prior to December 31, 2024.
Indemnification Agreements
We entered into agreements with each Executive
and each director under which we will be required to indemnify them against expenses, judgments, damages, liabilities, losses, penalties,
excise taxes, fines and amounts paid in settlement and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with an actual or
threatened proceeding if any of them may be made a party because the Executive or director is or was one of our Executives. We will be
obligated to pay these amounts only if the executive or director acted in good faith and in a manner that he or she reasonably believed
to be in or not opposed to our best interests. With respect to any criminal proceeding, we will be obligated to pay these amounts only
if the Executive or director had no reasonable cause to believe his/her conduct was unlawful. The indemnification agreements also set
forth procedures that will apply in the event of a claim for indemnification.
Director Compensation
Director Compensation Table
The following table sets forth information regarding
the compensation earned for service on our board of directors by our non-employee directors during the year ended December 31, 2022. Messrs.
Claiborne and Stilley also served on our board of directors and received compensation as a result. The compensation for Messrs. Claiborne
and Stilley as executive officers and Directors is set forth above under “—Summary Compensation Table.”
(a) Name | |
(b) Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($) | | |
(c) Stock Awards ($) | | |
(d) Option Awards(1) ($) | | |
(e) Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($) | | |
(f) Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($) | | |
(g) All Other Compensation ($) | | |
(h) Total ($) | |
J. Kermit Anderson | |
$ | 38,000 | | |
| — | | |
$ | 65,168 | | |
$ | — | | |
| — | | |
| — | | |
$ | 103,168 | |
Robertson H. Gilliland, MBA | |
$ | 35,000 | | |
| — | | |
$ | 65,168 | | |
$ | — | | |
| — | | |
| — | | |
$ | 100,168 | |
Tony Goodman | |
$ | 59,000 | | |
| — | | |
$ | 65,168 | | |
$ | — | | |
| — | | |
| — | | |
$ | 124,168 | |
James W. Newman, Jr. | |
$ | 41,000 | | |
| — | | |
$ | 65,168 | | |
$ | — | | |
| — | | |
| — | | |
$ | 106,168 | |
Kevin Schuyler, MBA, CFA | |
$ | 43,000 | | |
| — | | |
$ | 65,168 | | |
$ | — | | |
| — | | |
| — | | |
$ | 108,168 | |
(1) | As
of December 31, 2022, the following are the total outstanding number of option awards held by each of our non-employee directors, all
awards having been made prior to January 1, 2023: |
Name | |
Option Award (#) | |
J. Kermit Anderson | |
| 145,580 | |
Robertson H. Gilliland, MBA | |
| 145,580 | |
Tony Goodman | |
| 176,160 | |
James W. Newman, Jr. | |
| 145,580 | |
Kevin Schuyler, MBA, CFA | |
| 145,580 | |
Directors receive cash compensation for their
service as directors, including service as members of each committee on which they serve.
On June 30, 2017, the board of directors approved
a plan for the annual cash compensation of directors, which plan was amended on February 12, 2021 with respect to directors’ compensation,
which plan remained in effect in 2022:
| |
Board | | |
Audit Committee | | |
Compensation Committee | | |
Nominating & Governance Committee | |
Chair | |
$ | 30,000 | | |
$ | 16,000 | | |
$ | 11,000 | | |
$ | 8,000 | |
Member | |
$ | 24,000 | | |
$ | 8,000 | | |
$ | 6,000 | | |
$ | 4,000 | |
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain
Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters Principal Stockholders Table.
The following table sets forth certain
information, as of March 27, 2023, with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock by each of the following:
| ● | each
person who is known by us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock; |
| ● | each
of our named executive officers; and |
| ● | all
of our directors and executive officers as a group. |
As of March 27, 2023, we had 28,516,564
shares of common stock outstanding.
We have determined beneficial ownership
in accordance with the rules of the SEC. These rules generally attribute beneficial ownership of securities to persons who possess sole
or shared voting power or investment power with respect to those securities. In addition, the rules include shares of common stock issuable
pursuant to the exercise of profits interest units, warrants or other rights that are either immediately exercisable or exercisable on
or before May 26, 2023, which is approximately 60 days after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These shares are deemed to be
outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding those options or warrants for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership
of that person, but they are not treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. Unless
otherwise indicated, the persons or entities identified in this table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares
shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to applicable community property laws.
Except as otherwise noted below,
the address for each of the individuals and entities listed in this table is c/o Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1001 Research Park Blvd.,
Suite 100, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
Name and address of beneficial owner | |
Number of Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned | | |
Percentage of Common Stock Beneficially Owned | |
Directors and named executive officers | |
| | |
| |
Cary J. Claiborne (Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director)(1) | |
| 1,201,296 | | |
| 4.20 | % |
Joseph Truluck (Chief Financial Officer)(2) | |
| 665,365 | | |
| 2.29 | % |
William B. Stilley, III (Executive Vice President, Director and CEO of Purnovate, Inc.)(3) | |
| 2,551,629 | | |
| 8.49 | % |
J. Kermit Anderson (Director)(4) | |
| 114,469 | | |
| * | |
Robertson H. Gilliland, MBA (Director)(5) | |
| 114,469 | | |
| * | |
Bankole Johnson, DSc, MD (Chief Medical Officer)(6) | |
| 856,199 | | |
| 2.97 | % |
James W. Newman, Jr. (Director)(7) | |
| 883,118 | | |
| 3.04 | % |
Kevin Schuyler, CFA (Director)(8) | |
| 274,505 | | |
| * | |
Tony Goodman (Director)(9) | |
| 144,137 | | |
| * | |
| |
| | | |
| | |
All current executive officers and directors as a group (9 persons)(10) | |
| 6,805,187 | | |
| 21.22 | % |
(1) | Comprised of 1,100,000 shares of common stock and an option
to purchase 101,296 shares of common stock which will vest within 60 days of March 27, 2023, which shares were part of total option
grants to purchase 196,667 shares of our common stock. |
(2) | Comprised of 107,639 shares of our common stock. The number
of shares also includes 5,927 warrants to purchase shares of common stock at an exercise price of $6.25 per share. Includes option
to purchase 551,799 shares of common stock, which will vest within 60 days of March 27, 2023, which shares were part of a total
option grant to purchase 635,132 shares of our common stock. |
(3) | Includes (i) 687,729 shares of common stock, a warrant
to acquire 10,829 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $.0054 per share, a warrant to acquire 36,800 shares of our
common having an exercise price of $5.00 per share, a warrant to acquire 5,452 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of
$7.63 per share, a warrant to acquire 205,827 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $6.25 per share; (ii) 333,250
shares of common stock, and a warrant to acquire 9,824 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $7.63 per share owned by
Mr. Stilley and his wife Anne T. Stilley. Does not include (x) 5,580 shares of our common stock owned by the Meredith
A. Stilley Trust dtd 11/23/2010; (y) 5,580 shares of our common stock owned by the Morgan J. Stilley Trust dtd 11/23/2010;
and (z) 5,580 shares of our common stock owned by the Blair E. Stilley Trust dtd 11/23/2010. The trusts are for the benefit
of Mr. Stilley’s children and Mr. Stilley is not the trustee. Mr. Stilley disclaims beneficial ownership of these
shares except to the extent of any pecuniary interest he may have in such shares. The number of shares reported for Mr. Stilley
represents the number of shares he and the trusts received in connection with the corporate conversion/reincorporation and subsequent
stock issuances. Includes option to purchase 1,261,918 shares of common stock which will have been vested within 60 days of March
27, 2023, which shares were part of total option grants to purchase 1,367,474 shares of our common stock. Of the shares of common stock
listed above, 201,109 held by Mr. Stilley and his wife Anne T. Stilley that were issued to them in connection with the acquisition
of Purnovate, LLC are subject to a lock-up and are held in escrow as collateral to secure certain of our rights in connection with the
acquisition agreement until the earlier of two (2) year anniversary of the closing of the acquisition or on the termination date
of Mr. Stilley’s employment if termination is by us without cause. |
(4) | Includes option to purchase 114,469 shares of common stock which
will vest within 60 days of March 27, 2023, which shares were part of total option grants to purchase 145,580 shares of our common
stock. |
(5) | Includes option to purchase 114,469 shares of common stock which
will vest within 60 days of March 27, 2023, which shares were part of total option grants to purchase 145,580 shares of our common
stock. |
(6) | Includes (i) 148,246 shares of our common stock, owned
by En Fideicomiso De Mi Vida 11/23/2010 (Trust); (ii) 93,000 shares of our common stock owned by En Fidecomiso de Todos Mis Suenos
Grantor Retained Annuity Trust dated June 27, 2017; (iii) 201,055 shares of our common stock, a warrant to purchase 3,275 shares
of our common stock having an exercise price of $7.63, warrants to purchase 39,714 shares of our common stock having an exercise price
of $6.25, a warrant to purchase 17,600 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $5.00 per share, all owned directly by
Bankole A. Johnson; (iv) 22,320 shares of our common stock owned by En Fideicomiso De Mis Suenos 11/23/2010 (Trust); (v) 10,090
shares of our common stock owned by De Mi Amor 11/23/2010 (Trust); (vi) an aggregate of 9,300 shares of our common stock owned by
Efunbowale Johnson, Ade Johnson, Lola Johnson, Lina Tiouririne, and Aida Tiouririne from whom Dr. Johnson has an voting proxy, (vi) 40,463
shares of our common stock owned by Medico-Trans Company, LLC. Medico-Trans Company, LCC is controlled by Bankole Johnson. Dr. Johnson
is the Trustee of each Trust. Includes option to purchase 271,136 shares of common stock which will have been vested within 60 days
of March 27, 2023, which shares were part of total option grants to purchase 290,580 shares of our common stock. |
(7) | Includes (i) 152,963 shares of common stock, a warrant
to purchase 5,415 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $.0054 per share, a warrant to purchase 4,974 shares of our
common stock having an exercise price of $7.63 per share, a warrant to acquire 205,715 shares of our common stock having an exercise
price of $6.25 per share, and a warrant to acquire 92,000 shares of common stock having an exercise price of $5.00 per share, all owned
by Virga Ventures, LLC; (ii) 41,160 shares of our common stock, a warrant to acquire 29,931 shares of our common stock at an exercise
price of $6.25 per share and a warrant to acquire 2,372 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $7.63 per share, all owned
by Newman GST Trust FBO James W. Newman Jr; (iii) 50,221 shares of our common stock, a warrant to acquire 1,186 shares of our
common stock having an exercise price of $7.63 per share and a warrant to acquire 45,178 shares of our common stock having an exercise
price of $6.25 per share, and a warrant to acquire 20,000 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $5.00 per share, all
owned by Ivy Cottage Group, LLC.; (iv) 34,475 shares of our common stock, a warrant to acquire 2,707 shares of our common stock
having an exercise price of $.0054 per share, a warrant to acquire 708 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of $7.63 per
share, all owned by Rountop Limited Partnership, LLP; (v) 34,644 shares of common stock, and a warrant to acquire 10,000 shares
of common stock having an exercise price of $6.25 per share held in a Roth IRA for the benefit of Mr. Newman; (vi) 20,000 shares
of common stock, and a warrant to acquire 10,000 shares of common stock having an exercise price of $6.25 per share, all owned directly
by Mr. Newman, and (vii) 5,000 shares of common stock owned by Courtney Newman, daughter of Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman
is the sole member of Virga Ventures, LLC, the general partner of Ivy Cottage Group, LLC and Rountop Limited Partnership, LLP, and Trustee
of the Newman GST Trust. Includes option to purchase 114,469 shares of common stock which will vest within 60 days of March 27,
2023, which shares were part of total option grants to purchase 145,580 shares of our common stock. |
(8) | Includes (i) 3,042 shares of our common stock, and a warrant
to acquire 1,963 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $.0054 per share, and a warrant to acquire 1,172 shares of common
stock at exercise price of $7.63, owned by Carolyn M. Schuyler, Mr. Schuyler’s wife, (ii) warrant to acquire 1,010
shares common stock at exercise price of $.0054 per share and warrant to acquire 8,649 shares common stock at exercise price of $7.63
per share, all owned by the Kevin William Schuyler 2020 Irrevocable Perpetuities Trust, for which Mr. Schuyler’s wife Carolyn
M. Schuyler, is trustee, and (iii) 144,200 shares of common stock, all owned directly by MVA 151 Investors, LLC. MVA 151
Investors, LLC is an entity under Mr. Schuyler’s control. Includes option to purchase 114,469 shares of common stock which
will vest within 60 days of March 27, 2023, which shares were part of total option grants to purchase 145,580 shares of our common
stock. |
(9) | Includes 8,755 shares of our common stock, and a warrant to
acquire 7,000 shares of our common stock having an exercise price of price of $6.25 per share issued upon consummation of our initial
public offering. Mr. Goodman has also been granted an option to purchase 176,160 shares of our common stock, of which 128,382 are
vested and exercisable within 60 days of March 27, 2023. |
(10) | Includes all of the directors, all of the named executive officers
and Dr. Johnson. |
Changes In Control
None.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
See Part I, Item 5— Equity Compensation
Plan Information for certain information regarding our equity compensation plans.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions, and Director Independence.
Review, Approval and Ratification of Transactions
with Related Persons
The general policy of Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and our audit committee is that all material transactions with a related-party and agreements with related parties, as well as all material
transactions in which there is an actual, or in some cases, perceived, conflict of interest, will be subject to prior review and approval
by our audit committee and its independent members, which will determine whether such transactions or proposals are fair and reasonable
to our company and our stockholders. In general, potential related-party transactions will be identified by our management and discussed
with our audit committee at our audit committee’s meetings. Detailed proposals, including, where applicable, financial and legal
analyses, alternatives and management recommendations, will be provided to our audit committee with respect to each issue under consideration
and decisions will be made by our audit committee with respect to the foregoing related-party transactions after opportunity for discussion
and review of materials. When applicable, our audit committee will request further information and, from time to time, will request guidance
or confirmation from internal or external counsel or auditors. Our policies and procedures regarding related-party transactions are set
forth in our Audit Committee Charter and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, both of which are publicly available on our website at www.adialpharma.com
under the heading “Investors—Corporate Governance.”
Related-Party Transactions
The following is a summary of transactions since
January 1,
On October 5, 2021, we released 200,000 shares
of our common stock and 150,000 warrants, expiring July 31, 2023 and exercisable at $6.25 per share, beneficially owned by Dr. Bankole
Johnson, from a Lock-Up Agreement by and between us and Dr. Johnson, dated December 12, 2019, as amended, and the related Pledge and Security
Agreement, by and between us and Dr. Johnson, dated December 12, 2019, to permit the sale of such shares and warrants to Bespoke Growth
Partners, Inc. in a private transaction.
Grant Incentive Plan
On April 1, 2018, the board of directors approved
and then revised, respectively, a Grant Incentive Plan to provide incentive for Bankole A. Johnson (the “Plan Participant”),
to secure grant funding for us. Under the Grant Incentive Plan, we will make a cash payment to the Plan Participant each year based on
the grant funding received by us in the preceding year in an amount equal to 10% of the first $1 million of grant funding received and
5% of grant funding received in the preceding year above $1 million. Amounts to be paid to the Plan Participants will be paid to each
as follows: 50% in cash and 50% in stock. As of December 31, 2022, no grant funding that would result in a payment to the Plan Participant
had been obtained.
Purnovate
On January 25, 2021, we closed the Acquisition
contemplated by that Equity Purchase Agreement pursuant to which we purchased all of the outstanding membership interests of Purnovate
from the members of Purnovate, such that after the Acquisition, Purnovate became our wholly owned subsidiary. Purnovate is a drug development
company with a platform focused on developing drug candidates for non-opioid pain reduction and other diseases and disorders potentially
targeted with adenosine analogs that are selective, potent, stable, and soluble.
William B. Stilley, our then President and Chief Executive Officer
and a member of its board of directors, and James W. Newman, a member of our board of directors, were Members or Purnovate and received
$100,554 and $1,865 of the cash consideration and 201,109 and 3,731 shares of our common stock from the Acquisition. As previously stated,
Mr. Stilley is subject to a two (2) year lock up with respect to the sale and transfer of the Stock Consideration that he received so
long as his employment has not been terminated by us without cause prior to the end of such two (2) year period. Mr. Stilley owns approximately
28.7% of the membership interest of Purnovate and Mr. Newman controls two entities that, together, own less than 1% of the membership
interests of Purnovate.
Related Party Share Purchase Agreements
On March 11, 2021, the we entered into Securities
Purchase Agreements (the “March SPAs”) with each of Bespoke, three entities controlled by James W. Newman, Jr., a member of
the Company’s Board of Directors (“Newman”), and Keystone Capital Partners, LLC (“Keystone”), pursuant to
which: (i) Bespoke agreed to purchase an aggregate of 336,667 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $3.00 per share for aggregate
gross proceeds of $1,010,001; (ii) Newman agreed to purchase an aggregate of 30,000 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of
$3.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $90,000; and (iii) Keystone agreed to purchase an aggregate of 333,334 shares of our common
stock at a purchase price of $3.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $1,000,002.
On July 6, 2021, we entered into Securities Purchase
Agreements, dated July 6, 2021 (the “July SPAs”), with three pre-existing investors for an aggregate investment of $5,000,004
in consideration of the purchase by such investors of an aggregate of 1,666,667 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $3.00
per share. SPAs were entered with each Bespoke, Keystone, and Richard Gilliam, a private investor (“Gilliam”) (collectively,
the “Investors,” and each an “Investor”), pursuant to which: (i) Bespoke agreed to purchase an aggregate of 833,334
shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $3.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $2,500,002; (ii) Keystone agreed to
purchase an aggregate of 500,000 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $3.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $1,500,000;
and (iii) Gilliam agreed to purchase an aggregate of 333,334 shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $3.00 per share for gross
proceeds of $1,000,002.
Under the terms of the July SPAs, on July 7, 2021:
(i) Bespoke purchased 83,334 shares of our common stock and agreed to purchase an additional 750,000 shares of our common stock upon the
effectiveness of the Registration Statement; (ii) Keystone purchased 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and agreed to purchase
an additional 450,000 shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of the registration statement; and (iii) Gilliam purchased 33,334
shares of our common stock and agreed to purchase an additional 300,000 shares of our common stock upon the effectiveness of the Registration
Statement.
Under the terms of the July SPAs, on August 2,
2021, Bespoke purchased 750,000 shares of our common stock for proceeds of $2,250,000; and on August 4, 2021, Keystone purchased 450,000
shares of our common stock for proceeds of $1,350,000 and Gilliam purchased 300,000 shares of our common stock for proceeds of $900,000.
The shares sold pursuant to the July SPAs were registered though a registration statement on Form S-3 that was filed with the SEC on July
20, 2021 and declared effective on July 29, 2021.
On November 9, 2021, the Company entered into
a Securities Purchase Agreement with Bespoke (“the November SPA”) whereby Bespoke agreed to purchase up to 200,000 shares
of our common stock at a price of $4.00 per share for an aggregate investment of $800,000. Pursuant to the terms of the November SPA,
Bespoke purchased an initial 20,000 shares of our common stock on November 9, 2021 and agreed to purchase an additional 180,000 shares
of our common stock upon the effectiveness of a registration statement. On December 17, 2021, after the effectiveness of a registration
statement on form S-3, the additional 180,000 were sold.
Purnovate Option Agreement
On January 27, 2023, the Company and Adenomed
LLC (“Buyer”) entered into an Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”) pursuant to which the Company granted
to the Buyer an exclusive option for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the effective date of the Agreement (the “Option
Term”) for Buyer or its designated affiliate to acquire all of the assets of Purnovate, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.
William Stilley, a director and Executive Vice President of the Company and Chief Executive Officer of Purnovate, serves as the President
of Buyer and is the principal stockholder of Buyer. As consideration for the Option Agreement, the Company and Mr. Stilley entered into
an amendment to Mr. Stilley’s employment agreement, as amended (the “Stilley Amendment”), that (i) deleted the provision
of the employment agreement that provided that the termination by Mr. Stilley of his employment on or before February 22, 2023 shall be
deemed to be a termination by him for good reason and (ii) added a provision to the employment agreement providing that Mr. Stilley will
not serve on a full time basis for the Company and may provide services to other businesses including Buyer. The Option Agreement also
provides that the Buyer may elect to acquire all of the equity of Purnovate from the Company instead of purchase all of the assets of
Purnovate.
The Buyer has the right to extend the Option Term
for an additional thirty (30) consecutive day period by the payment of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to the Company prior to
the end of the original Option Term, and Buyer may also extend the Option Term for another thirty (30) consecutive day period by the payment
of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to the Company prior to the end of the extended Option Term.
The Buyer has the right to exercise the Option
by paying a cash exercise price of $150,000. Upon exercise of the Option, the Company will transfer to and Buyer will assume liabilities
of Purnovate, including: (i) trade payables incurred for services or purchases by Purnovate exclusively for its research operations; (ii)
any unpaid salaries of personnel on Purnovate’s payroll; and (iii) the lease for 1180 Seminole Trail, Suite 495, Charlottesville,
VA 22901 (as modified). All other Purnovate liabilities, shall be retained by, or transferred to, the Company and any amounts owed by
Purnovate to Company will be extinguished. The Company will be reimbursed by Buyer for any Purnovate expenditures incurred and paid commencing
December 2022, to be paid within thirty (30) days of execution of the final acquisition agreement, and will hold a security interest in
the assets of Buyer until the expense reimbursement is paid in full and the equity in Buyer described below is issued to Company.
The Option Agreement sets forth the terms of the
definitive acquisition agreement to be negotiated in good faith by the parties after exercise of the Option which include: (i) a cash
payment of $300,000 upon the completion of the definitive acquisition agreement (in additional to the option exercise fee); (ii) the issuance
by Buyer to Company of 19.99% of the equity of Buyer within thirty (30) days of execution of the final acquisition agreement (such 19.99%
to be subject to anti-dilution protection until the Buyer has raised $4,000,000); (iii) the assumption by Buyer of the obligations of
Company under that certain Equity Purchase Agreement by and among Company, Purnovate, the members of Purnovate, and Robert D. Thompson
as the member’s representative, dated December 7, 2020 and amended January 25, 2021 (the “PNV EPA”); (iv) the assumption
by Buyer of the obligations of Company under that certain Employment Agreement, dated July 31, 2018, as amended, by and between Company
and William Stilley; (v) a low, single digit royalty payments on net sales; (vi) cash payments of up to approximately $11 million in development
and approval milestones for each compound after payments to the prior members of Purnovate pursuant to the PNV EPA; and (vii) cash payments
of up to an aggregate of $50,000,000 upon the achievement of certain commercial milestones.
The Option Agreement was approved by the Company’s
Board of Directors and by a committee of the Company’s Board of Directors consisting solely of independent directors.
Orbytel Consulting Agreement
On October 24, 2022, we entered into a Master
Services Agreement (the “MSA”) with Abuwala & Company, LLC, dba as Orbytel, for provision of strategic consulting services.
Orbytel made it known that it intended to utilize the services of the Keswick Group, LLC as a subcontractor in the provision of these
services. Tony Goodman, a director, is the founder and principal of Keswick Group, LLC, therefor Orbytel was considered a related party.
Director Independence
The information included under the heading “Board
Composition and Election of Directors” in Part III, Item 10 is hereby incorporated by reference into this Item 13.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
Marcum LLP serves as our independent registered public accounting firm.
Marcum was preceded by Friedman LLP, which merged with Marcum LLP.
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Fees and Services
The following table sets forth the aggregate fees
including expenses billed to us for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 by our auditors:
| |
Year ended | | |
Year ended | |
| |
December 31, | | |
December 31, | |
| |
2022 | | |
2021 | |
| |
| | |
| |
Audit fees and expenses(1) | |
$ | 204,995 | | |
$ | 164,520 | |
Taxation preparation fees | |
| — | | |
| — | |
Audit related fees | |
| — | | |
| — | |
Other fees | |
| — | | |
| — | |
| |
$ | 204,995 | | |
$ | 164,520 | |
(1) |
Audit fees were for professional services rendered for the annual audit and reviews of the interim results included in the Form 10-Q’s of the financial statements of the Company, and professional services rendered in connection with our underwritten public offerings of shares as well as services provided with other statutory and regulatory filings. |
The Audit Committee has adopted procedures for
pre-approving all audit and non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm, including the fees and terms
of such services. These procedures include reviewing detailed back-up documentation for audit and permitted non-audit services. The documentation
includes a description of, and a budgeted amount for, particular categories of non-audit services that are recurring in nature and therefore
anticipated at the time that the budget is submitted. Audit Committee approval is required to exceed the pre-approved amount for a particular
category of non-audit services and to engage the independent registered public accounting firm for any non-audit services not included
in those pre-approved amounts. For both types of pre-approval, the Audit Committee considers whether such services are consistent with
the rules on auditor independence promulgated by the SEC and the PCAOB. The Audit Committee also considers whether the independent registered
public accounting firm is best positioned to provide the most effective and efficient service, based on such reasons as the auditor’s
familiarity with our business, people, culture, accounting systems, risk profile, and whether the services enhance our ability to manage
or control risks, and improve audit quality. The Audit Committee may form and delegate pre-approval authority to subcommittees consisting
of one or more members of the Audit Committee, and such subcommittees must report any pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committee at
its next scheduled meeting. All of the services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm were pre-approved by the
Audit Committee.