MANNKIND CORP

Previous wording

These risks may be exacerbated by our limited experience with V-Go and its manufacturing processes.

Current wording

These risks may be exacerbated by our limited experience with V-Go and its manufacturing processes. If V-Go does not continue to qualify for duty-free treatment, any tariffs that apply to imported goods from China could materially and adversely affect our margins on V-Go sales.

Previous wording

Our ability to pass increased costs to customers is limited by the structure of pharmaceutical and medical device pricing and reimbursement systems. Pricing for our products is established through annual or multi-year contracts with commercial, third-party payors and pharmacy benefit managers, customers, and group purchasing organizations, and reimbursement methodologies established by government programs, such as Medicare. These arrangements typically include fixed pricing terms that were negotiated prior to the implementation of the recently announced tariffs. As a result, and depending on the timing and scope of the implementation of these tariffs, cost increases due to tariffs may be difficult or impossible to pass through to customers until the next negotiation cycle, which could be up to 36 months away.

Current wording

Our ability to pass increased costs to customers is limited by the structure of pharmaceutical and medical device pricing and reimbursement systems. Pricing for our products is established through annual or multi-year contracts with commercial, third-party payers and pharmacy benefit managers, customers, and group purchasing organizations, and reimbursement methodologies established by government programs, such as Medicare. These arrangements typically include fixed pricing terms that were negotiated prior to the implementation of the recently announced tariffs. As a result, and depending on the timing and scope of the implementation of these tariffs, cost increases due to tariffs may be difficult or impossible to pass through to customers until the next negotiation cycle, which could be up to 36 months away.

Previous wording

Our future revenues and ability to generate positive cash flow from operations may be affected by the continuing efforts of government and other third-party payers to contain or reduce the costs of healthcare through various means. In the United States, there have been several congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, the IRA limited insulin copays to $35 per month for Medicare Part D beneficiaries starting in 2023. In certain foreign markets, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to direct governmental control. The European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market.

Current wording

Our future revenues and ability to generate positive cash flow from operations may be affected by the continuing efforts of government and other third-party payers to contain or reduce the costs of healthcare through various means. In the United States, there have been several congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) limited insulin copays to $35 per month for Medicare Part D beneficiaries starting in 2023. In certain foreign markets, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to direct governmental control. The European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market.

Previous wording

We have raised capital in the past through the sale of equity and debt securities and the sale of certain assets. In the future, we may pursue the sale of additional equity, debt securities and/or assets, or the establishment of other funding facilities including asset-based borrowings. There can be no assurances, however, that we will be able to raise additional capital in the future on acceptable terms, or at all. Volatility and disruptions of the global supply chain and financial markets, if sustained or recurrent, could prevent us or make it more difficult for us to access capital.

Current wording

We have raised capital in the past through borrowings and the sale of equity and debt securities and the sale of certain assets. In the future, we may pursue the sale of additional equity, debt securities and/or assets, or the establishment of other funding facilities including asset-based borrowings. There can be no assurances, however, that we will be able to raise additional capital in the future on acceptable terms, or at all. Volatility and disruptions of the global supply chain and financial markets, if sustained or recurrent, could prevent us or make it more difficult for us to access capital.

Previous wording

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the "Tax Act"), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the IRA enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Further guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to such legislation may affect us, and certain aspects of such legislation could be repealed or modified in future legislation. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.

Current wording

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. The annual reconciliation bill signed into law on July 4, 2025, commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”), the IRA, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and legislation informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted made significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the "Tax Act") required taxpayers to capitalize and amortize U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based research and experimental, or R&E, expenditures over five and fifteen years, respectively. The OBBBA restored the deductibility of domestic R&E expenditures in the year incurred for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, but retained the capitalization and amortization requirement for foreign R&E expenditures. Further guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to such legislation may affect us, and certain aspects of any legislation could be repealed, modified or sunset in future years. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.

Previous wording

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sections 382 and 383, annual use of the Company’s federal and California net operating loss and research and development credit carryforwards may be limited in the event a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% occurs within a three-year period. As a result of the Company's initial public offering, an ownership change within the meaning of Section 382 occurred in August 2004. As a result, federal net operating loss and credit carryforwards of approximately $105.8 million are subject to an annual use limitation of approximately $13.0 million. The annual limitation is cumulative and therefore, if not fully utilized in a year can be utilized in future years in addition to the Section 382 limitation for those years. We have completed a Section 382 analysis beginning from the date of our initial public offering through December 31, 2024, to determine whether additional limitations apply to the net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes, and no additional changes in ownership that met Section 382 study ownership change threshold have been identified through December 31, 2024. There is a risk that changes in ownership may occur in tax years after December 31, 2024. If a change in ownership were to occur, our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes could be further limited or restricted. If limited, the related asset would be removed from the deferred tax asset schedule with a corresponding reduction in the valuation allowance. Due to the existence of the valuation allowance, limitations created by future ownership changes, if any, related to the Company’s operations in the U.S. will not impact the Company’s effective tax rate.

Current wording

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sections 382 and 383, annual use of the Company’s federal and California net operating loss and research and development credit carryforwards may be limited in the event a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% occurs within a three-year period. As a result of the Company's initial public offering, an ownership change within the meaning of Section 382 occurred in August 2004. As a result, federal net operating loss and credit carryforwards of approximately $105.8 million are subject to an annual use limitation of approximately $13.0 million. The annual limitation is cumulative and therefore, if not fully utilized in a year can be utilized in future years in addition to the Section 382 limitation for those years. We have completed a Section 382 analysis beginning from the date of our initial public offering through December 31, 2024, to determine whether additional limitations apply to the net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes, and no additional changes in ownership that met the Section 382 study ownership change threshold have been identified through December 31, 2024. There is a risk that changes in ownership may occur in tax years after December 31, 2024. If a change in ownership were to occur, our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes could be further limited or restricted. If limited, the related asset would be removed from the deferred tax asset schedule with a corresponding reduction in the valuation allowance. Due to the existence of the valuation allowance, limitations created by future ownership changes, if any, related to the Company’s operations in the U.S. will not impact the Company’s effective tax rate.

Previous wording

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there has been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals in recent years to change the healthcare system in ways that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and continues to significantly affect the healthcare industry. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges and amendments to certain provisions of the PPACA. In addition, there have been proposed and enacted health reform initiatives affecting the PPACA. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ("IRA") extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in PPACA marketplaces through plan year 2025, eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program, and capped the out-of-pocket cost of insulin (including Afrezza) at $35 per month for Medicare recipients beginning in 2023. It is possible that the PPACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges, other litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the current administration will impact the PPACA.

Current wording

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there has been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals in recent years to change the healthcare system in ways that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and continues to significantly affect the healthcare industry. There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges and amendments to certain provisions of the PPACA. In addition, there have been proposed and enacted health reform initiatives affecting the PPACA. For example, the IRA extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in PPACA marketplaces through plan year 2025, eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program, and capped the out-of-pocket cost of insulin (including Afrezza) at $35 per month for Medicare recipients beginning in 2023. It is possible that the PPACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges, other litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the current administration will impact the PPACA.

Previous wording

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. These new laws and initiatives may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Current wording

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, on July 4, 2025, the OBBBA was signed into law which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to PPACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the PPACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire in 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. These new laws and initiatives may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Previous wording

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), the FDA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for MannKind’s business. These actions include directives to reduce agency workforce, rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending and eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan, directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs for Medicare through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (“Loper Bright”), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Finally, Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. We cannot predict which additional measures may be adopted or the impact of current and additional measures on the marketing, pricing and demand for our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), the FDA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for MannKind’s business. These actions and proposals include (1) reducing agency workforce; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs for Medicare through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. If Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products is implemented and applicable to Afrezza, our revenue opportunities for Afrezza may be adversely affected, as our U.S. pricing for Afrezza would have to be reduced to the lowest price paid for Afrezza outside of the United States. In such event and subject to the terms of our agreements with our ex-U.S. partners, we may choose to forgo the ex-U.S. market. Likewise, our royalty revenue from Tyvaso DPI could suffer for the same reason. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (“Loper Bright”), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Finally, Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. We cannot predict which additional measures may be adopted or the impact of current and additional measures on the marketing, pricing and demand for our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area (“EEA”) and the United Kingdom (“UK”) have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework) these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have prevented companies from transferring personal data out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Regulators in the United States, such as the Department of Justice, are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data transfers and have imposed and may enact certain data localization requirements, particularly if we transfer personal data to, or process personal data of residents of, high risk or sanctioned jurisdictions, such as the Biden Administration’s executive order Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern.

Current wording

In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area (“EEA”) and the United Kingdom (“UK”) have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework) these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have prevented companies from transferring personal data out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Regulators in the United States, such as the Department of Justice, are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data transfers and have imposed certain data localization requirements, particularly if we transfer personal data to, or process personal data of residents of, high risk or sanctioned jurisdictions, such as the Biden Administration’s executive order Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern.

Previous wording

The rules and interpretations of the SEC and the courts relating to the definition of "investment company" are very complex. Although we are a biopharmaceutical company and we do not hold ourselves out as an investment company, the value of our investment securities relative to our total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) has in the past exceeded safe harbor limits prescribed in the '40 Act. If our asset mix does not continue to qualify for one of the safe harbor limits prescribed in the ‘40 Act, it is possible that the SEC would take the position that we would be required to register under the ‘40 Act and comply with the ‘40 Act’s registration and reporting requirements, capital structure requirements, affiliate transaction restrictions, conflict of interest rules, requirements for disinterested directors, and other substantive provisions. If we were required to register as an “investment company”

Current wording

The rules and interpretations of the SEC and the courts relating to the definition of "investment company" are very complex. Although we are a biopharmaceutical company and we do not hold ourselves out as an investment company, the value of our investment securities relative to our total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) has in the past exceeded safe harbor limits prescribed in the '40 Act. If our asset mix does not continue to qualify for one of the safe harbor limits prescribed in the ‘40 Act, it is possible that the SEC would take the position that we would be required to register under the ‘40 Act and comply with the ‘40 Act’s registration and reporting requirements, capital structure requirements, affiliate transaction restrictions, conflict of interest rules, requirements for disinterested directors, and other substantive provisions. If we were required to register as an “investment company” and be subject to the restrictions of the ‘40 Act, those restrictions likely would require significant changes in the way we do business and add significant administrative costs and burdens to our operations.

Previous wording

We have paid no cash dividends on any of our capital stock to date, and we currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, we do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future, and payment of cash dividends, if any, will also depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and other factors and will be at the discretion of our board of directors. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate or maintain its current price. You could lose the entire value of any investment in our common stock.

Current wording

We have paid no cash dividends on any of our capital stock to date, and we currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. In addition, we are restricted from paying dividends on our capital stock pursuant to the terms of the Blackstone Credit Facility. As a result, we do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future, and payment of cash dividends, if any, will also depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and other factors and will be at the discretion of our board of directors. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate or maintain its current price. You could lose the entire value of any investment in our common stock.

Previous wording

Other international and geopolitical events could also have a serious adverse impact on our business. For instance, in February 2022, Russia initiated military action against Ukraine and the two countries are now at war. In response, the United States and certain other countries imposed significant sanctions and trade actions against Russia and could impose further sanctions, trade restrictions, and other retaliatory actions. Additionally, in October 2023, Hamas initiated an attack against Israel, provoking a state of war and subsequently a larger regional conflict. Furthermore, following Hamas’ attack on Israel, the Houthi movement, which controls parts of Yemen, launched a number of attacks on commercial marine vessels in the Red Sea. The Red Sea is an important maritime route for international trade and as such disruptions to these trade routes can have an impact on global supply chains. As a result of such disruptions, we may experience in the future extended lead times, delays in supplier deliveries, and increased freight costs. While we cannot predict the broader consequences, these conflicts and retaliatory and counter-retaliatory actions could materially adversely affect global trade, currency exchange rates, inflation, regional economies, and the global economy, which in turn may increase our costs, disrupt our supply chain, impair our ability to raise or access additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current wording

Other international and geopolitical events could also have a serious adverse impact on our business. For instance, in February 2022, Russia initiated military action against Ukraine and the two countries are now at war. In response, the United States and certain other countries imposed significant sanctions and trade actions against Russia and could impose further sanctions, trade restrictions, and other retaliatory actions. Additionally, in October 2023, Hamas initiated an attack against Israel, provoking a state of war and subsequently a larger regional conflict. Furthermore, following Hamas’ attack on Israel, the Houthi movement, which controls parts of Yemen, launched a number of attacks on commercial marine vessels in the Red Sea. The Red Sea is an important maritime route for international trade and as such disruptions to these trade routes can have an impact on global supply chains. Additionally, in 2025, Israel and Iran traded a number of attacks on each other and the U.S. has taken a military action against Iran. As a result of such disruptions, we may experience in the future extended lead times, delays in supplier deliveries, and increased freight costs. While we cannot predict the broader consequences, these conflicts and retaliatory and counter-retaliatory actions could materially adversely affect global trade, currency exchange rates, inflation, regional economies, and the global economy, which in turn may increase our costs, disrupt our supply chain, impair our ability to raise or access additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.