Greenwich LifeSciences Inc

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on our Phase III clinical trial, Flamingo-01, which is evaluating GLSI-100, an immunotherapy to prevent breast cancer recurrences. GP2 is a 9 amino acid transmembrane peptide of the HER2/neu protein, a cell surface receptor protein that is expressed in a variety of common cancers, including expression in 75% of breast cancers at low (1+), intermediate (2+), and high (3+ or over-expressor) levels. The combination of GP2 + GM-CSF is called GLSI-100. We have commenced Flamingo-01, a Phase III clinical trial, with plans to expand into Europe and to open up to 150 sites globally. Flamingo-01 is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GLSI-100 in HER2*/neu* positive patients with residual disease or high-risk pathologic complete response at surgery and who have completed both neoadjuvant and postoperative adjuvant trastuzumab based treatment.

Our Product Candidate

GP2 is a HER2/neu transmembrane peptide that elicits a targeted immune response against HER2/neu-expressing cancers. Below is an image of a cell surface showing therapeutically relevant cell surface proteins in cancer. Breast cancers and other solid tumors with elevated expression of HER2/neu protein are highly aggressive with an increased disease recurrence and a worse prognosis.

GM-CSF Immunoadjuvant

Recombinant human granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor or GM-CSF (sargramostim, Leukine®) has been shown to enhance monocyte and neutrophil cytotoxicity against melanoma tumor cells and to enhance activity-dependent cellular cytotoxicity of monocytes and neutrophils against targets coated with the anti-ganglioside antibodies. GP2 will be delivered in combination with GM-CSF to induce GP2 peptide specific immunity. GP2 treatment is administered via an intradermal injection by mixing GP2 peptide and GM-CSF at the time of administration.

GM-CSF is available in lyophilized form exclusively from one manufacturer. We will continue to be dependent on the manufacturer for our supply of GM-CSF in our ongoing GP2 clinical trials and upon potential commercialization of GP2. Although GM-CSF is only approved for sale in the U.S. by the FDA and is available in other countries on a named patient basis through a specialized company that focuses on making products approved in the U.S. available globally, GM-CSF may be registered for sale in other countries by the manufacturer in the future.

Cancer Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy is a new method of cancer treatment among more established treatment options such as surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiation therapy. This method seeks to stimulate an individual’s immune system to selectively attack cancer cells while not affecting normal cells or to deliver certain immune system components in order to inhibit the spread of cancer. Thus, cancer immunotherapy is an important and rapidly emerging field, which has led to new clinical research studies and garnered the attention of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, payors and hospital systems, cancer patients and their families, and the general public at large.

Cancer immunotherapy harnesses the body’s natural immune system response to fight and/or prevent tumor growth. An essential characteristic of the immune system, which is a network of tissues, cells, and signaling molecules that work to protect the body, is its ability to differentiate foreign threats, including cancerous growths, from normal cells. Despite the fact that tumor cells originate from normal cells, tumor cells can be recognized as foreign threats because of their ability to elicit the production of tumor antigens. These antigens may be released in the interstitial tissues, and eventually in the bloodstream or may remain on the surface of cognate cancer cells. The HER2/neu protein is one of the most widely expressed tumor antigens in multiple malignances.

Several cell types play an important role in the development and maintenance of immune responses against cancer. The most important cell types with regard to immune response are antigen-presenting cells (“APCs”) and lymphocytes. APCs include various subtypes, such as dendritic cells, monocytes and macrophages. Once a patient is exposed to a tumor antigen (either by the presence of cancer itself or through active immunization through a vaccine type immunotherapeutic), the tumor antigen gets recognized by the APC and becomes “processed” through digestion into smaller fragments within the APC. Subsequently, the APC “communicates” with a specific type of lymphocyte called a T-cell. Inactive T-cells search for tumor antigens by transiently binding to antigens presented by major histocompatibility complexes (“MHCs”) on the APCs. There is great variability in the expression of different subtypes of MHCs in the human population. The MHC system expresses human leukocyte antigens (“HLAs”) and these HLA subtypes determine the vigor and duration of any given T-cell response to a cancer among different patients.

As shown below, following GP2 immunotherapy, CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes recognize and destroy HER2/neu-expressing cancer cells. GP2 is administered in combination with an FDA-approved immunoadjuvant GM-CSF, which stimulates the proliferation of antigen presenting cells. Preclinical studies have shown that T cells sensitized against the GP2 peptide demonstrate significant recognition of HER2/neu-expressing tumors. Both ovarian and breast cancer-specific CTLs recognize GP2, which is widely expressed in HER2/neu-expressing tumors and is capable of inducing tumor-specific CTL populations in vitro.

Breast Cancer Treatment Approach — Adjuvant & Neoadjuvant Treatments

As shown below, in the adjuvant setting, a HER2/neu 3+ patient typically receives Herceptin in the first year following breast cancer surgery, with the hope that their breast cancer will not recur, and with the odds of recurrence slowly decreasing over the first 5 years following surgery. Herceptin has been shown to reduce recurrence rates by approximately 50%, from 25% to 12%, in the adjuvant setting. In the neoadjuvant setting, a HER2/neu 3+ patient receives treatment before surgery and based on the results of a biopsy at surgery, will receive Herceptin or Kadcyla, a more potent form of Herceptin, following surgery. Kadcyla has been shown to reduce recurrence rates by 50%, from 22% to 11%, in the neoadjuvant setting. Accordingly, we believe that GP2 may be effective in safely addressing the 50% of recurring patients who do not respond to either Herceptin or Kadcyla.

GP2 is administered in combination with the immunoadjuvant GM-CSF in years 2-4, following the first year of treatment with Herceptin, in a series of 11 intradermal injections comprising 6 primary injections over 6 months (1 injection per month) followed by 5 booster injections every 6 months thereafter.

The adverse events observed to date have been well-tolerated with no SAEs reported in the Phase IIb clinical trial considered related to GLSI-100 treatment. Therefore, GLSI-100 is well-positioned to serve this population at this stage of treatment. We believe that clinicians and patients are seeking a de-escalation and a return to normal life free of toxic treatments, especially if the chance of recurrence is reduced substantially. GLSI-100 may significantly reduce the incidence of recurrence/metastatic disease and need for additional therapy. Lastly, we believe that GP2 may be the treatment that will synergistically overlap with or follow trastuzumab based treatments, such as Herceptin, Kadcyla, Enhertu or any of the other Herceptin derivatives or antibody drug conjugates being developed.

GP2 Clinical Data & Phase III Clinical Trial (Flamingo-01)

In the Phase IIb and 3 Phase I clinical trials where 146 patients received GP2 immunotherapy, there were no serious adverse events observed related to the immunotherapy or any other GP2 combination treatments.

Phase I Clinical Trials

First GP2 Phase I Clinical Trial

As shown in the table above, the first GP2 Phase I clinical trial was conducted at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The clinical trial was conducted in patients over the age of 18 years with a diagnosis of HER2/neu 1-3+, node negative breast cancer who had undergone primary surgical and medical therapies and who were without evidence of disease at the time of enrollment into the clinical trial. Patients were HLA typed and HLA-A02 patients were skin tested for recall antigens. HLA-A02 patients found to be immunologically intact received the vaccine. There were no grade 3-5 toxicities observed among the 18 patients that received a total of 108 doses of GP2 + GM-CSF. Among all patients that participated in the clinical trial, the maximum observed local toxicity that occurred was grade 1 in 38.9% and grade 2 in 61.1% of the patients. The maximum systemic toxicity observed during the clinical trial was grade 0 in 5.6%, grade 1 in 61.1%, and grade 2 in 33.3% of the patients. The most common local reactions included erythema and induration (100% of patients), pruritis (25%), and inflammation (23%). The most common systemic reactions were grade 1 fatigue (40%) and grade 1 arthralgia/myalgia (15%). There were no recurrences and no deaths reported among the patients that participated in the clinical trial. Additional data analysis reported by the investigators, included topics such as pre-existing immunity, effects of dosing, and epitope spreading.

GP2 Phase I Clinical Trial — Combination with Trastuzumab

Preclinical research previously demonstrated that a synergy may exist between trastuzumab and GP2 peptide-stimulated CTLs ex vivo. Pretreatment of breast cancer cells with trastuzumab followed by incubation with GP2 peptide-induced CTLs resulted in enhanced cytotoxicity in 3 tumor cell lines compared to treatment with trastuzumab or GP2-specific CTLs alone. These results suggest that concurrent GP2 vaccination during trastuzumab therapy may be a possible combination immunotherapy.

As shown in the table above, a Phase I trial evaluating the combination therapy of GP2 + GM-CSF administered simultaneously with trastuzumab was conducted. The combination therapy was found to be well tolerated when given concurrently in 17 clinically disease-free, HER2/neuover-expressing breast cancer patients.

GP2 Phase I Clinical Trial — Combination with AE37

As shown in the table above, a Phase I trial evaluating the combination therapy of GP2 + GM-CSF administered simultaneously with HER2/neupeptide AE37 in 22 clinically disease-free, HER2/neu breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients was conducted. While 28 patients enrolled, 22 were treated and 14 patients completed the 6 vaccination series. Final results suggest that the combination of GP2 and AE37 peptides is well tolerated at each of the tested dosing levels. Additionally, we believe that the combination is capable of stimulating strong peptide-specific in vivo immune responses.

During the primary vaccination series, an AE37/GP2+GM-CSF dual peptide vaccine resulted in robust T-cell proliferation. However, significant immune responses became more variable at 6 and 12 months post vaccination suggesting the need for boosters in some individuals.

Phase II Clinical Trial

GP2 Phase IIb Clinical Trial Overview

Phase II Clinical Trial Study Report: We are preparing a comprehensive study report of the Phase II trial for the FDA prior to the filing of a BLA. This report will include the patients with breast cancer recurrences, the last known date of patients who did not recur (censoring data), the adverse events, immune responses, and other final study report analyses. This report will serve to complement the Phase III data and to provide a drug product dossier that can also be submitted to regulatory agencies in other countries for marketing approval. The use of GM-CSF as an adjuvant in GLSI-100 may also be included in the dossier as GM-CSF is only commercially available in the US at this time.

We have experienced significant interest from investors, strategics, analysts, and regulators in the 5 year follow-up data we published and the 3 and 4 year follow-up data independently published by the clinical investigators. The differences between these publications can be best explained by the increased maturity of the data as each year progressed. In all 3 publications, no recurrences or a 100% reduction in recurrence rate, were reported in the sub-population that the Flamingo-01 design has been based on and any differences between the number of patients in the treated or placebo groups has been shown to be immaterial.

We did not have responsibility for the conduct of the trial or for the data from the Phase II trial. After the trial had already started, we received the rights to the Phase II trial data pursuant to a license agreement with the Henry Jackson Foundation (HJF) that entitled us to all of the GP2 data from the Phase II trial and all prior trials, but did not provide us with the ability to participate in the Phase II trial as a regulatory clinical sponsor. The lead clinicians and HJF were responsible for project and site management, medical monitoring, data monitoring of case report forms (CRFs), correspondence with the FDA, and creation, data entry and management of the database. We were provided study updates but were not provided an opportunity to participate in any of the above activities or to review the publications of the 3 and 4 year follow-up data by the lead clinicians. Thus, the comprehensive study report will rely on cooperation from HJF and the clinical sites who are responsible for providing the final data accurately to us.

We are currently comparing the final CRFs and database provided by HJF and have noted the following inconsistencies as the comprehensive study report is being prepared. The lead clinicians reported in an annual report to the FDA and in their publication of 4 year follow-up data a 6th recurrence in the HER2 positive control arm of the study. We conservatively chose not to report this 6th recurrence since it was not reported in the data provided by HJF, even though adding this recurrence to the control arm would significantly lower the p-value and improve the evidence of efficacy of GLSI-100. As a result of detailed due diligence, we became aware in Q4 of 2023 of a potential recurrence in the HER2 positive treated arm. This patient was not reported as a recurrence in the database, on a CRF that should be used for a recurrence, in reports from the lead clinicians to the FDA, or in the 3 or 4 year follow-up data published by the lead clinicians. Some CRFs report a recurrence, but the critical CRF that confirms a recurrence was not completed or entered into the database provided by HJF. We have since initiated an effort to confirm with HJF and the clinicians who treated this patient the status of this patient, and if the final CRFs and database should be modified. It appears that this patient, who had completed treatment with GLSI-100, experienced a local recurrence that responded well to additional treatment and survived without additional evidence of disease or distant metastasis for the duration of study follow-up. Any discrepancies noted to date in the review of the censoring date recorded in the database do not materially change the study results and the median duration of follow-up remains 5 years.

While a recurrence in the control arm would decrease the p-value and still result in a 100% reduction in the recurrence rate, a recurrence in the treated arm would increase the p-value and would result in an 80% reduction in the recurrence rate. In either case, we believe that the reduction in recurrence rate is clinically meaningful and substantial compared to the approximately 20-50% reduction in recurrences of all other approved breast cancer drugs for this patient population. These findings have not materially affected the power of the Phase III study as the assumptions for that design were selected conservatively.

In a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled, multi-center (16 sites led by MD Anderson Cancer Center) Phase IIb clinical trial of HLA-A*02 breast cancer patients, 46 HER2/neu3+ over-expressor patients were treated with GLSI-100 and 50 placebo patients were treated with GM-CSF alone. After 5 years of follow-up, there was a substantial reduction in cancer recurrences in the HER2/neu3+ patients who were treated with GLSI-100, followed, and remained disease free over the first 6 months, which we believe is the time required to reach peak immunity and thus maximum efficacy and protection. Based on this data, we believe that treatment with GLSI-100 starting approximately in the second year following surgery may dramatically lower breast cancer recurrences in this patient population.

The design of the Phase IIb trial was as follows:

The Phase IIb clinical trial closed in December 2018. The final median 5 year follow-up data is presented below. A total 180 intent-to-treat patients enrolled in the clinical trial. HER2/neu status was determined based on the expression levels of the HER2/neu protein in each patient using standard of care HER2/neudiagnostic technology. The trial was prospectively designed to analyze these fully treated patients by 2 distinct patient populations, namely HER2/neu 3+ (positive or over expressors) and HER2/neu1-2+ (low to intermediate expressors):

5 Year Data Set of GP2 Phase IIb Trial: HER2 3+ (Positive or Over Expressors) Patients Who are in the Efficacy Population

The figure below shows a time series of the GLSI-100 immunotherapy injections, adverse events (“AE”), immune response, and 100% disease-free survival (0% recurrence rate) in HER2 positive breast cancer patients over median 5 years. The Kaplan Meier curve and p value, which are based on recurrence rates or disease free survival and censoring data, is subject to change pending the completion of the Phase II Clinical Trial Study Report described above. This time series highlights that the 10 GLSI-100 immunotherapy injections over the first 2.5 years (as depicted by the 10 arrows on the x-axis) demonstrated a potent immune response that typically peaked at 6 months. The immune response also included injection site and systemic reactions that peaked at approximately 6 months. We believe that these AEs are a positive sign that the immune system responded to GLSI-100 immunotherapy and contributed to the decline in metastatic breast cancer recurrence. The observed AEs associated with GLSI-100 injections were temporary and declined after GLSI-100 injections ended.

Safety & Immune Response Data of GP2 Phase II Trial

In both the HER2/neu 3+ and the HER2/neu1-2+ patient populations, GP2 was shown to be well tolerated. The observed AEs primarily consisted of injection site reactions which could be mitigated by reducing the GM-CSF dose (and then the GP2 dose, if necessary). No SAEs reported in the GP2 treated patients were considered attributable to GLSI-100.

GLSI-100 immunotherapy demonstrated GP2-specific immune responses, which we believe supports GP2’s mechanism of action. Statistically significant peak immunity was typically observed after 6 months of GLSI-100 treatment, as measured in both the Dimer Binding Assay and the Delayed Type Hypersensitivity (DTH) skin test. The HER2/neu 3+ population’s immune response was similar to the HER2/neu1-2+ population’s immune response, suggesting the potential to treat the HER2/neu 1-2+ population (including triple negative breast cancer) with GP2 immunotherapy in combination with trastuzumab (Herceptin) based products and other synergistic clinically active agents. The broad based immune response suggests the potential for GP2 to treat other HER2/neu 1-3+ expressing cancers. Further, booster injections given every 6 months after the PIS were observed to elicit a prolonged immune response, which may provide longer term protection.

Phase III Trial, Flamingo-01

We have commenced Flamingo-01, a Phase III clinical trial with Baylor College of Medicine as the global primary investigator site. Flamingo-01includes an interim analysisand uses a similar treatment regime as the Phase IIb clinical trial.

The primary objective of Flamingo-01 is to assess the safety and efficacy of GLSI-100 compared to placebo in HLA-A*02 positive and HER2/neupositive breast cancer patients who have a high risk of disease recurrence (stage I, II, or III at presentation with residual disease at surgery or stage III at presentation with pathologic complete response (“pCR”) at surgery) and have completed both neoadjuvant and postoperative adjuvant trastuzumab-based standard of care therapy.

An overview of the anticipated Phase III clinical trial design is shown below:

U.S. Breast Cancer Market

We believe that the market for GP2 is large. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 1 in 8 U.S. women (12.8%) will develop invasive breast cancer over her lifetime, with approximately 282,000 new breast cancer patients per year and 3.8 million current breast cancer survivors in the U.S. in 2021. An estimated 43,600 female breast cancer deaths will occur in the U.S. in 2021. HER2/neu3+ breast cancer patients comprise approximately 25% of all breast cancer patients. Approximately 40% to 50% of the U.S. population contains the HLA-A*02 allele, while node positive and high risk node negative patients comprise approximately 50% of the market. Therefore, we believe that the U.S. market for the first indication for GP2, if approved, could be the combination of the three populations above which together comprises approximately 6% of breast cancer patients who undergo surgery.

Competition

Cancer immunotherapy has become a significant growth area for the biopharmaceutical industry, attracting large pharmaceutical companies as well as small niche players. Generally, our principal competitors in the cancer immunotherapy market comprise both types of companies with currently approved products for various indications, such as manufacturers of approved bispecific antibodies, CAR-T cells, and checkpoint inhibitors, as well as companies currently engaged in cancer immunotherapy clinical development. The large and medium-size players who have successfully obtained approval for cancer immunotherapy products include Bristol-Myers Squib Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Genentech, Inc. (a subsidiary of Roche Holding AG), AstraZeneca PLC, Celgene Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Novartis, Juno Therapeutics, Inc. (a subsidiary of Celgene), Kite Pharma, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc./EMD Serono, Inc. Most of these companies, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, have substantially greater financial resources than we do.

Companies developing novel products with similar indications to those we are pursuing are expected to influence our ability to penetrate and maintain market share, if GLSI-100 is approved. For patients with early stage breast cancer, adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy is often given to prevent recurrence and increase the chance of long-term disease free survival. Adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer can include chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, radiation therapy, or combinations thereof. In addition, the HER2 targeted drug Herceptin (trastuzumab or biosimilar) alone or in combination with Perjeta (pertuzumab), both manufactured and marketed by Roche/Genentech, may currently only be given to patients with tumors with high expression of HER2/neu. Following adjuvant treatment in the first year following surgery, only Nerlynx is approved for extended andjuvant treatment and would potentially compete with GLSI-100 if not used synergistically. We believe that GP2 will act synergistically with Herceptin, Perjeta, Nerlynx, and the newest entrants Kadcyla and Enhertu.

There are a number of approved HER2/neu targeted therapies, some of which include the following: Genentech’s Herceptin, Perjeta (pertuzumab) and Kadcyla (TDM-1, ado-trastuzumab emtansine); Puma’s Nerlynx (neratinib); Daichi Sanko’s Enhertu (DS-8201, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki), and Seattle Genetics’ Tukysa (tucatanib). In addition, the following biosimilars to trastuzumab have been approved: Biocon/Mylan’s (Ogivri — trastuzumab-dkst; Celltrion/Teva’s (Herzuma — trastuzumab-pkrb); Samsung/Biogen/Merck’s (Ontruzant — trastuzumab-dttb); Pfizer’s (Trazimera — trastuzumab-qyyp); and Allergan/Amgen’s (Kanjinti; trastuzumab-anns). Furthermore, the following immune checkpoint inhibitors have also been approved or are under review by the FDA to treat breast cancer patients: Merck’s Keytruda (pembrolizumab) and Genentech’s Tecentriq (atezolumab). Moreover we believe that drug candidates from Sellas (formerly Galena), Marker (formerly TapImmune), Epithany, Antigen Express (Generex subsidiary), and various companies pursuing neoantigen technologies are in clinical development and are being pursued for different sub-populations or are behind GP2 in clinic development.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, and more experience in obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of treatments and in commercializing those treatments. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining approval for cancer immunotherapy products and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ treatments may be more effectively marketed and sold than any products we may commercialize, thus causing limited market share before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing our cancer immunotherapy product candidate.

Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These activities may lead to consolidated efforts that allow for more rapid development of cancer immunotherapy product candidates.

These competitors also compete with us in the recruiting and retaining of qualified scientific and management personnel, the ability to work with specific clinical contract organizations due to conflict of interest, and the conduct of trials in the ability to recruit clinical trial sites and patients for our clinical trials.

We expect any products that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, price, and the availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are viewed as safer, more convenient, or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our current product candidate or any other future product candidate, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidate nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”), and finished product candidate for our clinical trials and potential commercial supply.

Exclusive License

The Henry M. Jackson Foundation out-licenses technology of the U.S. military and it conducts research and manages clinical trials. HJF managed the GP2 Phase IIb clinical which was led by MD Anderson Cancer Center, oversaw all regulatory filings with the FDA for all 4 GP2 clinical trials (including the 3 Phase I and the Phase IIb clinical trials), and possesses all patient and manufacturing data from such trials.

In April 2009, we entered into an exclusive license agreement, as amended, with HJF pursuant to which HJF granted us exclusive worldwide rights to several U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications covering methods of using GP2 as an immunotherapy that elicits a targeted immune response against HER2/neu-expressing cancers. In consideration for such licensed rights, we issued HJF 202,619 shares of our common stock. In addition, we are required to pay an annual maintenance fee and milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $5.7 million. We are also required to make 2.5-5% royalty payments based on the sales of GP2 and to reimburse HJF for patent expenses. To date we have not been required to make any milestone or royalty payments to HJF. The term of the exclusive license shall terminate at such time that the last licensed patent or patent application expires or is abandoned, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of the exclusive license agreement. We may terminate the license by giving 90 days notice. HJF may terminate the license if we do not make required payments, if we default in our performance obligations, if we do not sufficiently develop and advance GP2 towards commercialization, and for various other reasons.

In connection with the exclusive license agreement with HJF, we were the financial and corporate sponsors of the GP2 Phase IIb clinical trial. HJF has provided us with all FDA correspondences and GP2 patient and manufacturing data for the history of the drug’s development for all 4 clinical trials, and we have incorporated this data into our corporate investigational new drug application (“IND”) with the FDA.

Intellectual Property Portfolio

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of third parties, our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our technologies where applicable, and our ability to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We intend to protect our proprietary technologies by, among other methods, evaluating relevant patents, establishing defensive positions, monitoring European Union oppositions and pending intellectual property rights, preparing litigation strategies in view of the U.S. legislative framework, and filing U.S. and international patent applications on technologies, inventions and improvements that are important to our business. Patents and other intellectual property rights are crucial to our success. We intend to protect our intellectual property rights through available means including filing and prosecuting patent applications in the U.S. and other countries, protecting trade secrets, and utilizing regulatory protections such as data exclusivity. In addition, we include restrictions regarding use and disclosure of our proprietary information in our contracts with third parties, and utilize customary confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, clinical investigators, and scientific advisors to protect our confidential information and know-how. Together with our licensors, we also rely on trade secrets to protect our combined technology especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. It is our policy to operate without knowingly infringing on, or misappropriating, the proprietary rights of others.

An international patent law treaty (“PCT”) provides a unified procedure for filing patent applications to protect inventions in each of its contracting states. Thus, a single PCT application can be converted into a national stage patent application in any of the more than 145 PCT contracting states, and is considered a simple, cost-effective means for seeking patent protection in numerous regions or countries. This nationalization (converting into an application in any of the contracting states) typically occurs 18 months after the PCT application filing date. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the U.S., the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the U.S., a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date.

HJF License

Pursuant to our exclusive license agreement with HJF, we were granted exclusive worldwide rights to several U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications covering methods of using GP2. The GP2 issued patents provide protection ranging from 2026 through 2032 in major markets such as the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia, and Canada, with ongoing prosecution of pending patent applications in other markets. We plan to register GP2 as a biologic, which may be subject to 10-12 years market exclusivity in the U.S. upon receiving marketing approval.

The following summarizes the two patent families subject to our exclusive license agreement with HJF. We have licensed rights to issued patents and pending patent applications in certain countries with respect to the two patent families below and do not own or have rights to any other patents or patent applications for GP2 or any other products:

Corporate Strategy

We do not have a sales, marketing, or product distribution strategy for our GP2 immunotherapy or any future product candidates because GP2 is still in clinical development. Our future commercial strategy, if our GP2 immunotherapy or any future product candidates are approved, may include the use of strategic partners, distributors, a contract sales force, or the establishment of our own commercial and specialty sales force for the U.S. market, as well as similar strategies for regions and territories outside the U.S. We plan to further evaluate these options as we approach submission of a new drug application or biologics license application for one our product candidates for one or more indications.

The GP2 issued patents provide protection ranging from 2026 through 2032 in various markets, and we plan to register GP2 as a biologic, which may be subject to 10-12 years market exclusivity in the U.S. upon receiving marketing approval. During this period of exclusivity, we intend to advance GP2 into a Phase III clinical trial in the U.S. and pursue a European and global clinical trial strategy to support GP2 registration outside of the U.S. We are considering various options to fund the Phase III clinical trial including financing and/or strategic transactions. Our strategy during such time also includes building a commercialization team, pursuing additional funding, and pursuing strategic collaborations to support the future global marketing and sales of GP2, if approved. A long term global and regional licensing process has been initiated and will continue as the Phase III trial commences.

Pipeline Strategy — Including GP2 In Other HER2/neu-Expressing Cancers

We are developing follow-on indications for GP2 by designing and planning additional clinical trials to expand the breast cancer patient population and to pursue additional HER2/neu-expressing cancers. Pending the receipt of sufficient capital, the Phase III clinical trial can be supplemented with additional clinical trials designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GLSI-100 in (1) patients immediately upon diagnosis in parallel to neoadjuvant treatment and surgery to provide maximum protection against breast cancer recurrence as soon as possible, (2) other HLA patients in the same HER2/neu 3+ breast cancer patient population, (3) breast cancer patients who are low to intermediate expressors of HER2/neu(1-2+) or (4) other HER2/neu-expressing cancers including, but not limited to, ovarian, gastrointestinal, and colon cancers.

Government Regulations

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state, and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring, and post-approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. Along with third-party contractors, we will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct clinical trials or seek approval or licensure of our current product candidate or any future product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label.

The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our current product candidate or any future product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human patients under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP, which include the requirement that all research patients provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some clinical trials also include oversight by a Data and Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, organized by the clinical trial sponsor, which provides authorization for whether or not a clinical trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the clinical trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for patients or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within a specified period, if at all, and there can be no assurance that the data collected will support FDA approval or licensure of the product. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

BLA Submission and Review by the FDA

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including clinical trials initiated by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial user fee to FDA, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual product and establishment user fees. These fees are typically increased annually. A waiver of user fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

Once a BLA has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review the application within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application relates to an unmet medical need in a serious or life-threatening indication, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all, and we may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in its efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing our product. After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter may request additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, plan to mitigate risks, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market clinical trials and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product under development.

A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate FDA’s review and approval of new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. For a product candidate with Fast Track designation, the FDA may consider sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if relevant criteria are met. A Fast Track designated product candidate may also qualify for priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the BLA at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review is granted when there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application is subject to the standard FDA review period of 10 months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Under the Accelerated Approval program, the FDA may approve a BLA on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Post-marketing clinical trials or completion of ongoing clinical trials after marketing approval are generally required to verify the biologic’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit.

In addition, a sponsor may seek FDA designation of its product candidate as a Breakthrough Therapy, if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application. Breakthrough designation also allows the sponsor to file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis.

Fast Track, Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy designations do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Our sales, promotion, medical education and other activities following product approval will be subject to regulation by numerous regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the U.S. in addition to FDA, including potentially the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services and state and local governments. Our promotional and scientific/educational programs must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the False Claims Act, or FCA, the Veterans Health Care Act, physician payment transparency laws, privacy laws, security laws, and additional state laws similar to the foregoing.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, the offer, receipt, or payment of remuneration in exchange for or to induce the referral of patients or the use of products or services that would be paid for in whole or part by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced price items and services. The government has enforced the Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham research or consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. Many states have similar laws that apply to their state health care programs as well as private payors.

The FCA imposes liability on persons who, among other things, present or cause to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment by a federal health care program. The FCA has been used to prosecute persons submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the FCA can result in significant monetary penalties and treble damages. The federal government is using the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multibillion dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. In addition, companies have been forced to implement extensive corrective action plans, and have often become subject to consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, restricting the manner in which they conduct their business. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, imposed new reporting requirements on drug manufacturers for payments or other transfers of value made by them to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties**.**Certain states also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians and other healthcare professionals.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which it conducts its business. HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, 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 attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to it, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Also, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. We cannot assure you that our internal control policies and procedures will protect us from reckless or negligent acts committed by our employees, future distributors, partners, collaborators or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could result in fines, penalties or prosecution and have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend significantly on the availability of third-party coverage and reimbursement. Third-party payors include government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Although we currently believe that third-party payors will provide coverage and reimbursement for our product candidate, if approved, these third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products. We may need to conduct expensive clinical trials to demonstrate the comparative cost-effectiveness of our product candidate. Seeking coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors can be time consuming and expensive. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Reimbursement may not be available or sufficient to allow us to sell our product on a competitive and profitable basis.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we are and will be subject, either directly or through our distribution partners, to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our product, if approved.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in non-U.S. countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the U.S. have processes that require the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to the competent national health authority and to independent ethics committees in each country in which a company plans to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trials may proceed in that country.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country, even though there is already some degree of legal harmonization in the European Union member states resulting from the national implementation of underlying E.U. legislation. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and other applicable regulatory requirements.

To obtain regulatory approval of a new drug or medicinal product in the European Union, a sponsor must obtain approval of a marketing authorization application. The way in which a medicinal product can be approved in the European Union depends on the nature of the medicinal product.

The centralized procedure results in a single marketing authorization granted by the European Commission that is valid across the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated as “orphan drugs” and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may, at the request of the applicant, also be used for human drugs which do not fall within the above mentioned categories if the human drug (a) contains a new active substance which was not authorized in the European Community; or (b) the applicant shows that the medicinal product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization in the centralized procedure is in the interests of patients or animal health at the European Community level.

Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the EMA is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP), with adoption of the actual marketing authorization by the European Commission thereafter. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest from the point of view of therapeutic innovation, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease to be treated; the absence of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach, and anticipation of exceptional high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the evaluation for the opinion of the CHMP is completed within 150 days and the opinion issued thereafter.

The mutual recognition procedure, or MRP, for the approval of human drugs is an alternative approach to facilitate individual national marketing authorizations within the European Union. The MRP may be applied for all human drugs for which the centralized procedure is not obligatory. The MRP is applicable to the majority of conventional medicinal products, and is based on the principle of recognition of an already existing national marketing authorization by one or more member states.

The characteristic of the MRP is that the procedure builds on an already existing marketing authorization in a member state of the E.U. that is used as reference in order to obtain marketing authorizations in other E.U. member states. In the MRP, a marketing authorization for a drug already exists in one or more member states of the E.U. and subsequently marketing authorization applications are made in other European Union member states by referring to the initial marketing authorization. The member state in which the marketing authorization was first granted will then act as the reference member state. The member states where the marketing authorization is subsequently applied for act as concerned member states.

The MRP is based on the principle of the mutual recognition by European Union member states of their respective national marketing authorizations. Based on a marketing authorization in the reference member state, the applicant may apply for marketing authorizations in other member states. In such case, the reference member state shall update its existing assessment report about the drug in 90 days. After the assessment is completed, copies of the report are sent to all member states, together with the approved summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. The concerned member states then have 90 days to recognize the decision of the reference member state and the summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. National marketing authorizations shall be granted within 30 days after acknowledgement of the agreement.

Should any Member State refuse to recognize the marketing authorization by the reference member state, on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the issue will be referred to a coordination group. Within a timeframe of 60 days, member states shall, within the coordination group, make all efforts to reach a consensus. If this fails, the procedure is submitted to an EMA scientific committee for arbitration. The opinion of this EMA Committee is then forwarded to the Commission, for the start of the decision-making process. As in the centralized procedure, this process entails consulting various European Commission Directorates General and the Standing Committee on Human Medicinal Products or Veterinary Medicinal Products, as appropriate.

For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the other applicable regulatory requirements.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Human Capital Management

As of April 10, 2024 we had 3 full-time employees and 4 part-time employees. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreements. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees. We do not have any employees that are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. Our future success depends on our ability to attract, develop and retain key personnel, maintain our culture, and ensure diversity and inclusion in our board, management and broader workforce. Our human resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees.