MyMD Pharmaceuticals Inc

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

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

Risk Factor Summary

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

Risks Related to our Business

Risks Related to our Product Development and Regulatory Approval

Risks Related to Commercialization and Manufacturing

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Series F Convertible Preferred Stock

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

Risks Related to our Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must attract and retain highly skilled employees to succeed.

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

We operate in a highly competitive industry.

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

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

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

In addition, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, research data, our proprietary business information and that of our suppliers, technical information about our products, clinical trial plans and employee records. Similarly, our third-party providers possess certain of our sensitive data and confidential information. The secure maintenance of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, ransomware, cyber fraud, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyberattacks or cyberintrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyberattacks or cyberintrusions, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, encrypted, lost or stolen. Any such access, inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information or other loss of information, including our data being breached at third-party providers, could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability or financial loss under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, disruption of our operations or our product development programs and damage to our reputation, which could adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to our Product Development and Regulatory Approval

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

Potential Risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risks Related to Commercialization and Manufacturing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risks Related to Government Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”). The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during clinical trials and the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent per product may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. U.S. and ex-U.S. law concerning patent term extensions and foreign equivalents continue to evolve. Even if we were to seek a patent term extension, it may not be granted because of, for example, the failure to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, the failure to apply within applicable deadlines, the failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or any other failure to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period of extension or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration sooner than expected, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Risks Related to Our Series F Preferred Stock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Risk Factors

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, as a public company, we are required to report, among other things, control deficiencies that constitute material weaknesses or changes in internal controls that, or that are reasonably likely to, materially affect internal controls 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 annual consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. If we fail to comply with the requirements of Section 404 or if we report a material weakness, we might be subject to regulatory sanction and investors may lose confidence in our consolidated financial statements, which may be inaccurate if we fail to remedy such material weakness.

We incur increased costs and demands on management as a result of compliance with laws and regulations applicable to public companies, which could harm our operating results.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, including costs associated with public company reporting requirements. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, impose a number of requirements on public companies, including with respect to corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance and disclosure obligations. Moreover, compliance with these rules and regulations has increased our legal, accounting and financial compliance costs and has made some activities more time-consuming and costly. It is also more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.

Our common stock is currently listed for trading on The Nasdaq Capital Market. We must satisfy Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements, including, among other things, a minimum stockholders’ equity of $2.5 million and a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share or risk delisting, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. A delisting of our common stock from The Nasdaq Capital Market could materially reduce the liquidity of our common stock and result in a corresponding material reduction in the price of our common stock. In addition, delisting could harm our ability to raise capital through alternative financing sources on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and may result in the potential loss of confidence by investors, suppliers, customers and employees and fewer business development opportunities.

As previously disclosed, on October 11, 2023, we received a written notice (the “Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market indicating that for the last 30 consecutive business days, the bid price for our Common Stock had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share requirement for continued listing on Nasdaq pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (the “Minimum Bid Price Requirement”). The letter also indicated that the Company will be provided with a compliance period until April 8, 2024 (the “Compliance Period”), in which to regain compliance pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A).

Effective as of 4:05 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 14, 2024, we effected the Reverse Stock Split of our common stock at a ratio of one-for-thirty. Simultaneously with the Reverse Stock Split, number of shares of our common stock authorized for issuance was reduced from 500,000,000 shares to 16,666,666 shares, and our authorized capital stock was reduced from 550,000,000 shares to 66,666,666 shares. Our common stock continued to be traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol MyMD and began trading on a split-adjusted basis at market open on February 15, 2024. On March 4, 2024, we were notified by Nasdaq that we had regained compliance with all Nasdaq listing requirements and the matter was closed.

We may issue additional equity securities in the future, which may result in dilution to existing investors.

To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. The combined Company may, from time to time, sell additional equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner it determines. If we sell additional equity securities, existing stockholders may be materially diluted. In addition, new investors could gain rights superior to existing stockholders, such as liquidation and other preferences. In addition, the number of shares available for future grant under our equity compensation plans may be increased in the future. In addition, the exercise or conversion of outstanding options or warrants to purchase shares of capital stock may result in dilution to our stockholders upon any such exercise or conversion.

All of our outstanding shares of Common Stock are, and any shares of our Common Stock that may be issued in the future in respect of potential milestone payments, will be, freely tradable without restrictions or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), except for shares subject to lock-up agreements, and any shares held by affiliates, as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. Rule 144 defines an affiliate as a person who directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the Company and would include persons such as our directors and executive officers and large shareholders. In turn, resales, or the perception by the market that a substantial number of resales could occur, could have the effect of depressing the market price of our Common Stock.

In addition, we may be required to issue an indeterminate number of shares of Common Stock to the holders of our Series F Preferred Stock and the February 2023 Warrants upon the conversion or exercise of either, as applicable. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Series F Preferred Stock— Holders of our Series F Preferred Stock are entitled to certain payments under the Certificate of Designation that may be paid in cash or in shares of Common Stock depending on the circumstances. If we make these payments in cash, it may require the expenditure of a substantial portion of our cash resources. If we make these payments in Common Stock, it may result in substantial dilution to the holders of our Common Stock.” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Series F Preferred Stock—The Certificate of Designation for the Series F Preferred Stock and the warrants issued concurrently contain anti-dilution provisions that may result in the reduction of the conversion price of the Series F Preferred Stock or the exercise price of such warrants in the future. These features may increase the number of shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of the Series F Preferred Stock or upon the exercise of the warrants.”

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our Common Stock and do not expect to do so in the foreseeable future. So long as any shares of Series F Preferred Stock are outstanding, as they are at this time, we are not able to declare or pay any cash dividend or distribution on any of our capital stock (other than as required by the Certificate of Designation) without the prior written consent of the Required Holders (as defined in the Certificate of Designation). The declaration of dividends is further subject to the discretion of our board of directors and limitations under applicable law, and will depend on various factors, including our operating results, financial condition, future prospects and any other factors deemed relevant our board of directors. You should not rely on an investment in us if you require dividend income from your investment in us. The success of your investment will likely depend entirely upon any future appreciation of the market price of our Common Stock, which is uncertain and unpredictable. There is no guarantee that our Common Stock will appreciate in value.

The trading market for our Common Stock relies in part on the availability of research and reports that third-party industry or financial analysts publish about us. There are many large, publicly traded companies active in the life sciences and biopharmaceutical industries, which may mean it will be less likely that we receive widespread analyst coverage. Furthermore, if one or more of the analysts who do cover the Company (if any) downgrades our stock, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of the Company, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline. Additionally, if securities analysts publish negative evaluations of competitors in the life sciences and biopharmaceutical industries, the comparative effect could cause our stock price to decline.

Anti-takeover provisions of our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove the current members of our board and management.

Certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws could discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change of control that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. Furthermore, these provisions could prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove members of our board of directors. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for our securities, thereby depressing the market price of our securities. Stockholders who wish to participate in these transactions may not have the opportunity to do so. These provisions, among other things:

In addition, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law that may, unless certain criteria are met, prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of the voting rights on our common stock, from merging or combining with us for a prescribed period of time.

We have been subject to a number of securities litigations, and we may be subject to similar or other litigation in the future.

We have been subject to a number of litigations as described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements. In connection with certain of these litigations, we have entered into settlements of claims for significant monetary damages. We may also be subject to judgements or enter into additional settlements of claims for significant monetary damages for the securities litigations that we have yet to enter into settlement agreements. Defending against the current litigations is or can be time-consuming, expensive and cause diversion of our management’s attention.

Companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have frequently been the objects of securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Class action and derivative lawsuits could result in substantial costs to us and cause a diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could materially harm our financial condition and results of operations.

With respect to any litigation, our insurance may not reimburse us, or may not be sufficient to reimburse us, for the expenses or losses we may suffer in contesting and concluding such lawsuit. Substantial litigation costs, including the substantial self-insured retention that we are required to satisfy before any insurance applies to a claim, unreimbursed legal fees or an adverse result in any litigation may adversely impact our business, operating results or financial condition. We believe that our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance will cover our potential liability with respect to any securities class-action lawsuit; however, the insurer has reserved its rights to contest the applicability of the insurance to such claims and the limits of the insurance may be insufficient to cover any eventual liability.