UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

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

For the transition period from ________ to ________

Commission file number: 001-41184

ZYVERSA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes: ☐ No: ☒

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of June 30, 2022, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of shares of the registrant’s Class A common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant (based upon the closing sales price of $9.93 for such shares on the Nasdaq Global Market on June 30, 2022) was approximately $77,127,889. For purposes of calculating the aggregate market value of shares held by non-affiliates, we have assumed that all outstanding shares are held by non-affiliates, except for shares held by each of our executive officers, directors, and 5% or greater stockholders. In the case of 5% or greater stockholders, we have not deemed such stockholders to be affiliates unless there are facts and circumstances which would indicate that such stockholders exercise any control over our company, or unless they hold 10% or more of our outstanding common stock. These assumptions should not be deemed to constitute an admission that all executive officers, directors, and 5% or greater stockholders are, in fact, affiliates of our company, or that there are not other persons who may be deemed to be affiliates of our company. Further information concerning shareholdings of our officers, directors, and principal stockholders is included or incorporated by reference in Part III, Item 12 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

As of March 23, 2023, the number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, was 9,211,922.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

ZYVERSA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 under Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements include statements with respect to our beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, anticipations, assumptions, estimates, intentions and future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may be beyond our control, and which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be forward-looking statements. You can identify these forward-looking statements through our use of words such as “may,” “can,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “should,” “indicate,” “would,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “expect,” “seek,” “estimate,” “continue,” “plan,” “point to,” “project,” “predict,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “potential” and other similar words and expressions of the future.

There are a number of important factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement made by us. These factors include, but are not limited to:

The foregoing does not represent an exhaustive list of matters that may be covered by the forward-looking statements contained herein or risk factors that we are faced with that may cause our actual results to differ from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. Please see “Part I—Item 1A—Risk Factors” for additional risks which could adversely impact our business and financial performance.

All forward-looking statements are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary notice. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report or the date of the document incorporated by reference into this report. We have no obligation, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to update, revise or correct any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. We have expressed our expectations, beliefs and projections in good faith and believe they have a reasonable basis. However, we cannot assure you that our expectations, beliefs or projections will result or be achieved or accomplished.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

All references in this report to “ZyVersa,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our” mean ZyVersa Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries unless we state otherwise, or the context otherwise indicates.

Company Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company leveraging proprietary technologies to develop drugs for patients with chronic renal or inflammatory diseases with high unmet medical needs. Our mission is to develop drugs that optimize health outcomes and improve patients’ quality of life.

We have two proprietary globally licensed drug development platforms, each of which was discovered by research scientists at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine (the “University of Miami” or “University”). These development platforms are:

We believe that each of our product candidates has the potential to treat numerous indications in their respective therapeutic areas. Our strategy is to focus on indication expansion to maximize commercial potential.

Our renal pipeline is initially focused on rare, chronic glomerular diseases. Our lead indication for VAR 200 is focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (“FSGS”). On January 21, 2020, we filed an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) for VAR 200, and the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has allowed our development plans to proceed to a Phase 2a trial in patients with FSGS based on the risk/benefit profile of the active ingredient (2HPβCD). Prior to initiating a Phase 2a trial in patients with FSGS, we are planning to support an open-label investigator-initiated trial (“IIT”) in Q4-2023 where we expect to obtain human proof-of-concept data in up to three renal patient cohorts. This will enable assessment of drug effects as patients proceed through treatment and will provide insights for developing our Phase 2a protocol. In addition to FSGS, VAR 200 has pharmacologic proof-of-concept data in animal models representative of Alport Syndrome and diabetic kidney disease, each of which may be developed based on our indication expansion strategy.

Our inflammasome ASC inhibitor program, IC 100, is in preclinical development. Our focus is on advancing 1C 100 toward a currently planned IND submission in Q2-2024, followed by initiation of a Phase 1 trial. IC 100 has pharmacologic proof-of-concept data in animal models representative of acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”) and multiple sclerosis (“MS”). We plan to conduct additional animal studies in up to six indications, such as immunoglobulin A (“IgA”) nephropathy, Parkinson’s Disease, Huntington’s Disease, congestive heart failure, and early Alzheimer’s disease, in our next waves of preclinical development. We anticipate that one or more lead indications for IC 100 will be selected based on data from our preclinical program.

About Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) is an increasing public health problem which affects over 75 million people worldwide, and approximately 37 million in the United States. The National Kidney Foundation estimates that approximately 80 million adults are at risk for kidney disease in the United States. With no disease modifying drug therapies commercially available, a sizeable percentage of kidney patients progress to end-stage renal disease (“ESRD”), requiring dialysis or transplant to survive. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018, approximately 131,600 people in the United States started treatment for ESRD, and nearly 786,000 people are currently living with ESRD in the United States (of those 786,000 people, approximately 71% are on dialysis, and 29% are living with a kidney transplant). Further, the economic burden associated with chronic kidney disease can be substantial, as Medicare Fee-for-Service spending was $130 billion in 2018 according to the National Kidney Foundation. We believe the high incidence level and the steep monetary burden caused by CKD create a need for effective, disease modifying drug therapies.

CKD is associated with poor prognosis and in 2017, according to the National Vital Statistics Report, CKD was the ninth-leading cause of death in the United States. To address this significant health problem, on July 10, 2019, the White House and Department of Health and Human Services launched the Advancing American Kidney Health (“AAKH”) initiative to advance kidney disease prevention and care in the United States, which has three goals: (1) to reduce the number of patients developing renal failure through better diagnosis, treatment, and preventative care; (2) to maximize provision of home dialysis care; and (3) to expand the pool of kidneys available for transplant. We believe that by mediating removal of excess renal intracellular cholesterol that contributes to kidney damage and dysfunction, VAR 200 has the potential to help address the AAKH initiative’s first goal to reduce the number of patients developing renal failure.

Our lead renal indication is FSGS, which is a progressive form of kidney disease with no approved drug therapies. Approximately 40-60% of FSGS patients develop end stage kidney disease within 10-20 years, requiring dialysis and ultimately kidney transplant to survive. FSGS is an orphan disease affecting approximately 40,000 people in the United States. It is characterized by injury to the kidneys’ filtration system or “glomerular podocytes” leading to scarring that is focal (i.e., affecting only some glomerulus) and segmental (i.e., affecting only part of glomerulus). Accumulation of cholesterol and lipids in renal glomeruli, which has been associated with structural damage and impaired kidney function, has been seen in FSGS patient biopsies and in representative FSGS animal models. Damage to the glomeruli causes protein to leak into urine, a condition known as proteinuria. As the level of protein increases in the urine, patients develop a specific set of symptoms known as nephrotic syndrome. Proteinuria is strongly associated with kidney disease progression, and nephrotic syndrome is generally predictive of a poor prognosis. Approximately 70% of FSGS patients present with nephrotic syndrome at diagnosis. By mediating removal of excess cholesterol from renal glomeruli, we believe that VAR 200 has the potential to preserve renal structure and function and thereby reduce proteinuria that leads to FSGS progression.

About Inflammatory Diseases

Chronic inflammatory diseases have been recognized as one of the most significant causes of death in the world today, with more than 50% of all deaths worldwide attributable to inflammation-related diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (“NAFLD”) and autoimmune and neurodegenerative conditions. Excessive and persistent activation of inflammasomes have been linked to the pathophysiology of these types of chronic diseases.

Inflammasomes are comprised of 3 proteins: (i) one of several types of sensor molecules, (ii) an apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (“ASC”), and (iii) proinflammatory caspase-1 (“pro-caspase-1”). There are multiple types of inflammasomes that trigger inflammation. They are named based on their associated sensor molecule, such as NLRP1, NLRP2, NLRP3, NLRC4, AIM2, and Pyrin. Numerous inflammatory diseases are often associated with activation of multiple types of inflammasomes. For example, multiple sclerosis is associated with activation of AIM2, NLRP1, NLRP3, and NLRC4. The ASC component of inflammasomes is a promising drug target since it is a component of the six most common types of inflammasomes referenced above. We believe this is more advantageous than targeting a specific sensor protein, a component of one type of inflammasome, which is the focus of several potential competitors. In addition to its pivotal role in inflammasome formation and activation required for initiation of an inflammatory response, ASC also plays a role in the perpetuation of inflammation associated with extracellular release of ASC specks. By targeting ASC, we believe IC 100 has potential to effectively control inflammation in a multitude of inflammatory diseases.

Our Pipeline

The goal of our pipeline is to target renal and inflammatory indications with high unmet medical needs, which we believe can be addressed by our mechanisms of action. We intend to further enhance and expand our product portfolio through the development of multiple indications for each of VAR 200 and IC 100, and through potential in-licensing of promising renal and anti-inflammatory product candidates.

Our current pipeline consists of the following:

For VAR 200, our lead renal indication is FSGS (VAR 200-01). For IC 100, we will select one or more lead indications prior to our IND filing planned for Q2-2024. This will be based on data from existing and future preclinical studies.

With the myriad of diverse diseases and conditions mediated by chronic inflammation, we believe IC 100 has potential to treat a multitude of inflammatory diseases. The following is a summary of the market for IC 100’s current pipeline.

Business Strategy

We seek to be recognized as a leading biopharmaceutical company at the forefront of innovation for patients with high unmet medical needs. We are committed to restoring health and transforming the lives of patients through development of biopharmaceutical products. Our strategy is to:

The dates and events reflected in the foregoing are estimates only, and there can be no assurances that the events included will be completed on the anticipated timeline presented, or at all. Further, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in the development of any of our product candidates, or any other products or product candidates we may develop in the future, or that any product candidate we may develop in the future, will receive FDA approval for any indication.

Our Product Candidates

Cholesterol Efflux Mediator ^TM, VAR 200 (2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin, 2HPβCD)

Cholesterol Efflux Mediator VAR 200 is an injectable drug in clinical development for treatment of chronic glomerular diseases, initially focusing on FSGS. Alport Syndrome and diabetic kidney disease indications may be pursued based on our indication expansion strategy.

VAR 200 was developed with the intent to preserve renal structure and function, and reduce proteinuria that leads to glomerular disease progression by mediating removal of excess cholesterol that damages renal glomeruli. For our lead renal indication, FSGS (VAR 200-01), we are planning to support an open-label IIT in 2023 where we expect to obtain human proof-of-concept data in up to 3 renal patient cohorts, to be followed by initiation of a Phase 2a trial in patients with FSGS. Based on the anticipated data and key learnings from these trials, we may progress development of VAR 200 for Alport Syndrome (VAR 200-02) and for diabetic kidney disease (VAR 200-03) based on our indication expansion strategy.

Role of Cholesterol and Lipid Accumulation in Glomerular Diseases (Including FSGS, Alport Syndrome, and Diabetic Kidney Disease)

In chronic glomerular diseases, cholesterol accumulates in glomerular podocytes, due in part to impaired transport out of the cell, or “efflux,” resulting from reduced expression of the cholesterol transporters ABCA1 and ABCG1. Glomerular lipid accumulation has been demonstrated by in vitro podocyte studies, in human biopsy data, and in animal models of various kidney diseases, including FSGS, Alport Syndrome, and diabetic kidney disease. As shown below, the lipid accumulation causes distorted podocyte structure, damaged podocyte foot processes, and podocyte detachment and loss, which impairs kidney filtration resulting in proteinuria and disease progression. We hypothesize that restoration of lipid homeostasis and podocyte integrity has the potential to slow ongoing kidney damage progression to kidney failure, and delay the need for dialysis and ultimately transplant.

VAR 200 Mechanism of Action

VAR 200’s active ingredient, 2HβCD, is comprised of seven sugar molecules bound together in a 3-D ring with a hydrophobic core and hydrophilic exterior. VAR 200 mediates cholesterol efflux both passively and actively by interacting with hydrophilic components of the glomerular membrane.

Passive Cholesterol Efflux

Passive cholesterol efflux occurs with formation of 2HPβCD dimers, which bind to the cell membrane surface and incorporate cholesterol into its hydrophobic core as an inclusion complex. Release of the 2HPβCD/cholesterol inclusion complex from the cell membrane surface brings the cholesterol into solution for transfer to cholesterol acceptors, such as high-density lipoprotein (“HDL”).

Active Cholesterol Efflux

Active cholesterol efflux occurs through mediating metabolism of free cholesterol into oxysterols. Oxysterols activate the liver X receptor (“LXR”)-transcription factors, resulting in induction of cellular cholesterol efflux pathways, including upregulation cholesterol efflux transporters, ABCA1 and ABCG1, which transport free cholesterol outside the cell to cholesterol acceptors, such as HDL.

Preclinical Support for VAR 200

We believe that VAR 200 has an established benefit/risk profile supported by our in vivo studies and decades of use as an excipient. Additionally, it is our belief that data from animal models representing FSGS, Alport Syndrome, and diabetic kidney disease demonstrate that VAR 200 promotes cholesterol removal from podocytes, protecting the kidney’s filtration system from damage and reducing protein spillage into the urine or “proteinuria.” These types of outcomes are thought to be key to delaying or preventing progression of kidney disease.

VAR 200 and FSGS

VAR 200 was evaluated in two FSGS mouse models, an experimental nuclear factor of activated T-cells (“NFAT”) FSGS model and an Adriamycin (“ADR”)-induced FSGS model, which is characterized by a milder, less progressive form of nephropathy than the NFAT model.

Nuclear Factor of Activated T-Cells (NFAT) Model

In a study to examine the role of altered podocyte cholesterol homeostasis in NFAT-mediated podocyte injury and the effects of treatment with VAR 200, researchers administered VAR 200 subcutaneously at 4,000 mg/kg to 6-week-old NFATc1^nuc mice 24 hours prior to induction with doxycycline, and then every other day for 4 days. Single transgenic (“ST”) mice served as a control.

VAR 200 (indicated by “CD” in the graphs below) significantly reduced cholesterol in the renal cortex of FSGS mice compared to untreated double transgenic mice (indicated by “DT” in the graphs below). This was associated with a significant reduction in proteinuria (albumin/creatine ratio) as shown below.

Adriamycin (ADR)-induced Model

In the second FSGS model, researchers injected 5-week-old BALB/c mice with one dose of Adriamycin at 11 mg/kg. Subsequently, VAR 200 was administered 24 hours later at 40 mg/kg via subcutaneous osmotic pump for 10 weeks. Non-induced mice served as a control.

VAR 200 (indicated by “CD” in the graphs below) significantly reduced mesangial expansion, which is commonly associated with lipid deposition, compared to untreated ADR-induced mice as shown below. This was associated with a significant reduction in proteinuria (albumin/creatine) and blood urea nitrogen (“BUN”) in VAR 200-treated) ADR-induced mice compared to untreated ADR-induced mice as shown below.

VAR 200 and Alport Syndrome

In another study, to evaluate whether VAR 200 has a protective effect in Alport Syndrome, researchers injected four-week-old female Col4a3 knockout (Col4a3−/−) mice with VAR 200 at 4000 mg/kg subcutaneously 3 times per week for 4 weeks. Wild type Col4a3 (“Col43+/+”) mice served as controls.

VAR 200 (indicated by “CD” in the graphs below) significantly reduced renal neutral lipid, cholesterol ester, and cholesterol crystal accumulation in Alport Syndrome mice when compared to untreated Alport Syndrome mice as shown below.

The decreased intracellular lipids in VAR 200-treated Alport Syndrome mice were associated with a significant reduction in renal damage (reduced mesangial expansion, fibrosis, and foot process effacement), and renal function was maintained when compared to untreated Alport Syndrome mice, as evidenced by reduced proteinuria (albumin/creatinine), blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine when compared to untreated Alport Syndrome mice as shown below.

VAR 200 and Diabetic Kidney Disease

In another study to determine if VAR 200 can sequester intracellular cholesterol and protect podocytes from cholesterol-dependent damage in diabetic kidney disease, researchers treated 4-week old BTBR ob/ob homozygous mice, a diabetic model of progressive kidney disease, with 3 weekly subcutaneous injections of VAR 200 at 4,000 mg/kg for 5 months. Heterozygous mice served as controls.

VAR 200 (indicated by “CD” in the graphs below) significantly reduced total cholesterol in the kidney cortex compared with untreated diabetic mice. This was associated with a significant reduction in renal damage (mesangial expansion) and reduced proteinuria (albumin/creatinine) compared to untreated diabetic mice starting at 2 months following treatment, with statistically significant reduced levels from 3 months to end of study as shown below.

Based on the results in animal models of 3 different renal diseases summarized above, we believe that VAR 200 has potential to induce and maintain partial or complete remission of proteinuria in renal patients with nephrotic syndrome, thereby reducing the rate of renal disease progression.

IC 100 (Inflammasome ASC Inhibitor)

IC 100 is a monoclonal antibody inflammasome ASC inhibitor in preclinical development for the treatment of numerous inflammatory diseases. IC 100 was developed with the intent of mediating chronic aberrant inflammation that is pathogenic in a multitude of inflammatory diseases by blocking initiation and perpetuation of the innate inflammatory response to stop disease progression and improve quality of life.

A lead indication as not yet been identified for IC 100. Our focus is on advancing IC 100 toward a planned submission of an IND application in Q2-2024, which we intend to be followed by initiation of a Phase 1 trial. IC 100 has pharmacologic proof-of-concept data in animal models representative of ARDS and MS. We plan to conduct GLP toxicology studies in mice and NHP and conduct additional animal studies in up to 6 additional indications, such as IgA nephropathy, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, congestive heart failure, and early Alzheimer’s disease, in our next waves of preclinical development (including,). One or more lead indications for IC 100 will be selected based on data from our preclinical program.

Role of Inflammasomes in Inflammatory Diseases

Excessive and persistent activation of inflammasomes have been linked to the pathophysiology of inflammatory diseases. Inflammasomes are multiprotein complexes that initiate an immune response to pathogens or internal danger signals. They are comprised three basic proteins: (i) one of several types of sensor molecules (e.g., NLRP1, NLRP2, NLRP3, NLRC4, AIM2, and Pyrin), (ii) adaptor protein, ASC, and (iii) pro-caspase 1. Each sensor molecule responds to different pathogens or internal danger signals.

As depicted below, in the presence of harmful pathogens or cell damage, an intracellular sensor molecule (e.g., NLRP3) is triggered, stimulating recruitment of adaptor ASC, which in turn recruits pro-caspase-1 to form an inflammasome. The inflammasome is the organizing center that recruits additional ASC and polymerizes in a prion-like structure to form a large filamentous signaling platform, known as an ASC Speck. ASC Specks provide a scaffold for pro-caspase-1 recruitment, which triggers conversion of pro-caspase-1 to active caspase-1, which in turn converts the cytokine pro-IL-1ß to its active form IL-1ß, initiating the inflammatory response. Activated caspase-1 also drives cleavage of Gasdermin D, which triggers pyroptosis, a form of programmed cell death, releasing active cytokines and ASC Specks into the extracellular space, with continued activation of pro-IL-1ß, heightening and perpetuating the inflammatory response in neighboring cells and tissues. Although inflammasome triggering of the innate immune response is essential for protection against pathogens, persistent overactivation of inflammasomes can lead to chronic inflammation underlying a multitude of inflammatory conditions and diseases. Numerous inflammatory diseases are associated with activation of multiple types of inflammasomes. For example, multiple sclerosis is associated with activation of AIM2, NLRP1, NLRP3, and NLRC4.

IC 100 Mechanism of Action

IC 100 was designed to bind to key amino acids in adaptor protein ASC that govern ASC recruitment into the inflammasome complex and ASC Speck formation:

Inflammasome Activation in One Condition Can Impact Another

A recent paper published in Translational Research demonstrates that inflammasome activity and signaling proteins triggered by one unique inflammatory condition can impact and potentially interact with another. The authors provided extensive evidence that traumatic brain injury (TBI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are linked by activation of multiple types of inflammasomes (NLRP3, NLRP1, and AIM2). In each condition, inflammasome activation leads to cell death and release of active cytokines and ASC specks to neighboring cells allowing for one condition to potentially exacerbate the other. For example, individuals with a history of moderate TBI have a 2.3 times greater risk of developing AD. Likewise, AD pathology is potentially exacerbated by inflammasome activation in patients with TBI through IL-18 and pathological ASC speck interactions with amyloid beta and phosphorylated tau, hallmarks of AD. The authors reported that inflammasome ASC represents a promising therapeutic target for TBI and AD because of ASC’s unique role in heightening and perpetuating inflammation in neighboring cells, and its pathological interactions with amyloid beta and phosphorylated tau. In a subsequent study, also published in Translational Research by several of the same authors, researchers evaluated if blocking inflammasome activity by inhibiting ASC with IC 100 reduces the elevated inflammatory response in AD mice after TBI. Data demonstrated that 100 resulted in reduction of inflammasome-mediated cytokine IL-1β in the injured cortex of AD mice at 1-week post-injury. This is consistent with preclinical studies conducted with IC 100, demonstrating reduced inflammatory activity, and improved histological and/or functional outcomes in models of traumatic brain injury and age-related brain inflammation (associated with conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease), highlighted in the next sections below.

Preclinical Support for IC 100

Non-GLP toxicology studies in mice and non-human primates demonstrate that IC 100 has a good safety profile. There were no drug-related adverse events at doses up to 300 mg/kg in either species. Likewise, epigenetic screening demonstrates a lower immunogenicity potential than many biologics. Based on our preclinical study in an animal model representing MS, inflammation was attenuated without immunosuppression. In addition to the studies in traumatic brain injury and age-related inflammation (early cognitive impairment) referenced above, IC 100 has pharmacologic proof-of-concept data in animal models representative of ARDS and MS, and mechanistic proof-of-concept data in animal models representative of spinal cord injury.

IC 100 and MS

In one study to determine if IC 100 protects against MS progression, researchers induced active experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (“EAE”) in C57BL/6 mice through immunization with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein peptide 35 – 55 (“MOG35 – 55”). IC 100 was administered via intraperitoneal (“IP”) injection at 10, 30, or 45 mg/kg on day 8 before appearance of clinical symptoms, followed by treatment every 4 days for 32 days. Vehicle served as a control.

IC 100 penetrated the spinal cord and decreased the number of spinal cords activated microglial CD4+, CD8+, and myeloid cells. This was associated with delayed onset and significantly improved functionality based on MS clinical scores as shown below.

IC 100 and ARDS

In another study to determine if IC 100 can improve histopathological outcomes in ARDS, researchers induced acute lung injury and subsequent ARDS in naïve mice by delivering extracellular vesicles (“EV”) from mice with traumatic brain injury, followed by IV administration of a functional prototype of IC 100 at 5 mg/kg 1 hour after EV delivery; animals were sacrificed 24 hours later. Data were compared to naïve, sham (saline), untreated, or enoxaparin at 3mg/kg experimental groups.

IC 100 inhibited inflammasome and cytokine activation in lungs as evidenced by a reduction in caspase-1, ASC, IL-1β, AIM2, HMGB1 when compared with untreated positive control animals. This was associated with improved histological outcomes and reduced acute lung injury scores indicative of decreased lung injury severity.

IC 100 Mechanistic Proof of Concept Data

Spinal Cord Injury

To determine the effects of ASC neutralization in spinal cord injury, researchers administered 50 mcg of anti-ASC tool antibody IV and IP 20 minutes after injury in Fischer rats subjected to moderate cervical spinal cord injury (“SCI”). Anti-ASC neutralizing antibodies decreased caspase-1 activation and cytokine levels, improved histopathological outcomes and decreased spinal cord lesion volume, and improves functional outcomes (e.g., motor skills) compared to controls.

Based on the promising results in animal models of various inflammatory diseases, we believe IC 100 has potential to mediate the persistent damaging inflammation associated with inflammatory disease and improve outcomes.

Traumatic Brain Injury

The effects of ASC neutralization in traumatic brain injury were evaluated in two different animal models, a penetrating ballistic-like brain injury model, and a fluid percussion injury model.

In the penetrating ballistic-like brain injury model, researchers performed IV administration of a functional prototype of IC 100 at 5 mg/kg four hours after injury in Sprague-Dawley rats receiving a penetrating ballistic-like brain injury. IC 100 decreased inflammasome activation, as evidenced by decreased caspase-1 activity, and pyroptosis in microglia and infiltrating leukocytes compared with vehicle control.

In the fluid percussion injury model, researchers performed IV administration of anti-ASC tool antibody at 15 mcg immediately after injury in Sprague — Dawley rats receiving a fluid-percussion injury. Immunoglobulin G (“IgG”) served as a control. Neutralization of ASC interfered with NLRP1 inflammasome signaling, leading to a significant reduction caspase-1 compared with IgG. This was associated with a significant reduction in contusion volume.

Age-related Inflammation (Early Cognitive Impairment)

To determine the effects of IC 100 on age-related inflammation, which is representative of early cognitive impairment, a functional prototype of IC 100 was administered via IP injection at 10 mg/kg for 3 days to aged mice (i.e., 18 months old). Aged mice receiving saline control, and untreated young mice (i.e., 3 months old) served as controls. IC 100 reduced inflammasome protein levels (i.e., NLRP1, ASC, capsase-1) and ASC Specks associated with a reduction of IL-1β, indicating that IC 100 reduces inflammasome activation in the cortex of aged mice.

ASC as a Biomarker

Biomarkers are valuable tools to predict, diagnose, and monitor disease progression. They can also be used to target patients who are likely to respond to specific treatments, and to monitor ongoing efficacy of those treatments over time.

Researchers at the University of Miami evaluated serum inflammasome proteins as potential biomarkers for inflammatory disorders and identified ASC as a potential candidate. Serum ASC levels were elevated in patients with various inflammatory disorders when compared to healthy people. Additionally, when compared to caspase-1 as a biomarker in patients with multiple sclerosis, ASC had a similar sensitivity to caspase-1, but a significantly higher specificity than caspase-1.

ASC levels have been demonstrated to correlate with disease outcomes and disease severity, for example:

Market and Commercial Opportunity

We believe that our lead product candidates have potential for treatment of diseases with significant unmet medical needs, including (i) our lead renal product candidate, VAR 200, in development for potential treatment of multiple renal indications such as focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and Alport Syndrome (orphan indications), and diabetic nephropathy; and (ii) our lead anti-inflammatory product candidate, IC 100, for treatment of multiple inflammatory diseases, including, but not limited to multiple sclerosis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. VAR 200 has not yet been granted orphan drug designation by the FDA for FSGS or Alport Syndrome.

Cholesterol Efflux Mediator^TM VAR 200 Opportunity

FSGS Market

The total addressable market for disease-specific drug therapies for FSGS has not been established because there are no approved drug therapies specific to the condition (please see the next section which discusses the current treatment limitations). FSGS, an orphan indication, is estimated to affect around 40,000 people in the United States, with more than 5,400 new cases diagnosed annually, according to Nephcure Kidney International. FSGS is most common in adults 45 years of age and older and occurs in Black Americans at a rate that is four times higher than in Caucasian Americans.

Current FSGS Treatments and Limitations

At present, there are no commercially available disease-specific treatments for FSGS and there is no known cure. Current therapy focuses on maintaining adequate nutrition, controlling blood pressure and serum lipids, minimizing loss of protein in the urine, and preventing complications from edema, thereby stabilizing kidney function. The most common drug therapy includes diuretics for edema, ACE inhibitors and ARBs for reduction of proteinuria, other antihypertensive agents, and lipid lowering drugs. Steroids and calcineurin inhibitors are also used to induce partial remission of proteinuria.

We believe that there is a significant unmet need for effective FSGS-specific treatments that can delay disease progression, prevent end-stage renal disease, improve patients’ quality of life, and reduce the health economic burden.

Alport Syndrome (AS)

AS, an orphan indication, is a progressive, inherited form of kidney disease that is often associated with hearing loss and abnormalities of the eye. It is caused by genetic mutations in genes encoding members of the type IV collagen family that ultimately cause lipid accumulation and scarring of the basement membranes of the kidney, or “glomerulus”, the inner ear, or “cochlea”, and the eye. A key, early feature of AS is blood in the urine, or “hematuria”, with a progressive decline in kidney function ultimately resulting in kidney failure. Hearing loss affecting both ears occurs in late childhood or early adolescence, generally before the onset of kidney failure. Patients may also have misshapen lenses in the eyes (anterior lenticonus) and abnormal retina coloration, but these abnormalities seldom lead to vision loss. Prognosis for patients with AS is poor.

AS Market

The total addressable market for disease-specific drug therapies for AS has not been established because there are no FDA approved drug therapies specific to the condition (please see the next section which discusses the current treatment limitations). AS represents all geographic and ethnic groups. Although the overall incidence in the general population is unknown, U.S. data demonstrates AS accounts for three percent of children and 0.2% of adults with end-stage kidney disease. The gene frequency of AS in the United States has been estimated at 1:5,000 to 1:10,000 people, suggesting there are approximately 30,000 to 60,000 affected individuals, according to the National Organization of Rare Diseases.

Current AS Treatments and Limitations

There are currently no commercially available disease-specific treatments for AS. Current therapy focuses on minimizing loss of protein in the urine and preventing complications from edema to help stabilize kidney function. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (“ACE”) inhibitor therapy or angiotensin receptor blocker (“ARB”) therapy is recommended in individuals with AS who show overt proteinuria. We believe that there is a significant unmet need for effective AS-specific treatments that can delay disease progression, prevent end-stage renal disease and hearing loss, and improve patients’ quality of life.

Diabetic Nephropathy

Kidney disease or “nephropathy” has been recognized as a common complication of diabetes since the 1950s. Currently, diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease in the United States and other Western societies. It is also one of the most significant long-term complications in terms of morbidity and mortality for individual patients with diabetes. Diabetes is responsible for 30 to 40% of all end-stage renal disease (“ESRD”) cases in the United States. Proteinuria is a predictor of morbidity and mortality. Patients with proteinuria have a 40-fold higher relative mortality rate. Microalbuminuria, (small quantities of albumin in the urine) independently predicts cardiovascular morbidity, and spillage of the protein, albumin into the urine (or “microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria”) increase mortality from any cause in diabetes mellitus.

Diabetic Nephropathy Market

The total addressable market for disease-specific drug therapies for Diabetic Nephropathy has not been established because there are no approved drug therapies specific to the condition (please see the next section which discusses the current treatment limitations). Up to 50% of patients who have had diabetes for more than 20 years have diabetic nephropathy. It is estimated that up to 12 million people in the United States according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Current Diabetic Nephropathy Treatments and Limitations

High blood sugar, or “hyperglycemia”, has been shown to be a major determinant of the progression of diabetic nephropathy, so good blood glucose control is a key to management of the condition. As with other kidney diseases, there are no renal-specific drug therapies. Control of blood pressure using ACE inhibitors and ARBs is standard of care. New treatment guidelines recommend sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (“SGLT2”) inhibitors for patients with Type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (“eGFR”) ≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at any level of current glycemic control. SGLT2 inhibitors have been proven to improve kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in this population.

We believe there is a significant unmet need for effective diabetic nephropathy-specific treatments that can delay disease progression, prevent end-stage renal disease, and improve patients’ quality of life.

IC 100 Opportunity

Anti-Inflammatory Biologics Market

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market was valued at $64.84 billion in 2019 and is projected to reach $149.80 billion by 2027 according to Fortune Business Insights.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

MS is a potentially disabling disease of the brain and spinal cord, which occurs as a result of the immune system attacking the protective myelin sheath that covers nerve fibers, resulting in communication problems between the brain and the rest of the body. Eventually, the disease can cause permanent damage or deterioration of the nerves.

Signs and symptoms of MS vary widely and depend on the amount of nerve damage and the specific nerves are affected. Common symptoms include numbness or weakness in one or more limbs, electric-shock sensations with certain neck movements, tremor, lack of coordination, or unsteady gait. Some people with severe MS may lose the ability to walk independently or at all, while others may experience long periods of remission without any new symptoms. Vison problems are also common in patients with MS, including partial or complete loss of vision, usually in one eye at a time, prolonged double vision, or blurry vision. Other symptoms may include slurred speech, fatigue, dizziness, and tingling or pain in parts of the body. Significant disability occurs within 20 to 25 years in about 30% of patients.

MS Market

In 2019, U.S. disease modifying drugs for MS achieved $14.4 billion in sales according to a 2020 report by Cowan and Company. Based on current estimates, MS affects 1 million people in the United States and 2.8 million people worldwide, according to data from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, approximately 85% of patients with MS have relapsing-remitting MS, and experience periods of new symptoms or relapses that develop over days or weeks and usually improve partially or completely. These relapses are followed by quiet periods of disease remission that can last months or even years. About 60% to 70% of people with relapsing-remitting MS eventually develop a steady progression of symptoms, with or without periods of remission, known as secondary-progressive MS. Some people with MS experience a gradual onset and steady progression of signs and symptoms without any relapses. This is known as primary-progressive MS.

Current MS Treatments and Limitations

Current treatment of MS includes immunomodulatory therapy (“IMT”) to address the underlying immune disorder and therapies to relieve or modify symptoms. The goal of IMT is to reduce the frequency of relapses and slow disease progression. Although there are numerous disease-modifying agents on the market, most have been approved for use only in relapsing forms of MS. There is only one FDA approved IMT for treatment of primary progressive MS. We believe there is a significant need for drugs that are effective in treating progressive MS, and we believe that IC 100 has potential to address this unmet need.

Acute Respiratory Disease Syndrome (ARDS)

ARDS is a life-threatening form of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, hypoxemia refractory to oxygen therapy, diffuse abnormalities on chest radiographs, and decreased lung compliance. Patients require prolonged ICU stays and hospitalizations, consuming significant healthcare resources. Prognosis is poor with numerous complications, and high mortality; survivors have significant functional impairment for years following recovery. The most common causes of ARDS are COVID-19, pneumonia, aspiration of gastric contents, and sepsis.

ARDS Market

The total addressable drug therapy market for ARDS has not been established because drug therapy is currently not used for treatment (please see the next section which discusses the current treatment limitations).ARDS affects approximately 90,600 patients per year in the United States, with mortality up to 45% according to Quintanilla et al (2021 publication). Globally, ARDS accounts for 10% of intensive care unit admissions, representing more than 3 million patients with ARDS annually. While the incidence of ARDS does not differ by gender, it increases with advancing age.

Current ARDS Treatments and Limitations

There are no commercially available drug treatments for ARDS. Current treatment of ARDS is focused on the underlying condition, supportive care, noninvasive or mechanical ventilation using low tidal volumes, and conservative fluid management. We believe IC 200 has potential to treat the widespread inflammation pathogenic in ARDS.

Other Development Candidates

We continue to seek to identify and acquire commercialization rights to other technologies relating to renal and inflammatory diseases.

Strategic Alliances and Arrangements

L&F Research LLC License Agreement

We entered into a License Agreement with L&F Research LLC (“L&F Research”) effective December 15, 2015, as amended (the “L&F License Agreement”), pursuant to which L&F Research granted us an exclusive, royalty-bearing, worldwide, sublicensable license under the patent and intellectual property rights and know-how specific to and for the development and commercialization of VAR 200, for the treatment, inhibition or prevention of kidney disease in humans and symptoms thereof, including FSGS. L&F Research was founded by the VAR 200 inventors and researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, who licensed the intellectual property from the University of Miami. Pursuant to the L&F License Agreement, we (i) paid L&F Research an upfront license fee of $200,000 upon signing; (ii) agreed to make additional payments to L&F Research upon the achievement of certain development milestones up to an aggregate maximum of $21.5 million; and (iii) agreed to pay L&F Research royalty payments on net sales of any resulting product upon the achievement of certain net sales milestones, ranging from 5% to 10% based on certain annual net sales thresholds. In addition, upon the signing of and pursuant to the L&F License Agreement, we issued to L&F Research four (4) warrants (the “L&F Warrants”), exercisable in the aggregate for 878,947 shares of our common stock upon certain terms and conditions set forth in the L&F License Agreement and the L&F Warrants.

On December 23, 2022, we entered into a Second Amendment to Waiver of Certain Rights under License Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) with L&F Research LLC (“L&F Research”), amending the previously disclosed Waiver of Certain Rights under License Agreement, dated March 2, 2022, between ZyVersa Therapeutics, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Old ZyVersa”) and L&F Research, as amended (the “Waiver Agreement”). The Second Amendment further extended to March 31, 2023, the period that L&F Research waived its right to terminate the License Agreement and exercise any other remedies thereunder, with respect to $1,500,000 of aggregate milestone payments due to L&F Research pursuant to the L&F License Agreement (the “Milestone Payments”). On February 28, 2023, we entered into an Amendment and Restatement Agreement (the “Restatement”) with L&F Research, amending and restating the Waiver Agreement, as amended. The Restatement provides that, with respect to the Milestone Payments, L&F Research waives its right to terminate the L&F License Agreement and exercise any other remedies thereunder, until (a) March 31, 2023, as to $1,000,000 of such Milestone Payments (“Waiver A”), and (b) January 31, 2024, as to $500,000 of such Milestone Payments (“Waiver B”). Waiver A is contingent upon (i) forgiveness by the Company of $351,579 in aggregate principal amount outstanding under the previously disclosed Promissory Note, dated December 13, 2020, between L&F Research, as the borrower, and Old ZyVersa, as the lender (the “Note”), and (ii) a cash payment by the Company to L&F Research in the amount of $648,421, in each case, to be effectuated on or before March 31, 2023. Waiver B is contingent upon a cash payment by the Company to L&F Research in the amount of $500,000 to be effectuated on or before the earlier of (x) January 31, 2024, and (y) ten business days from the date that the Company receives net proceeds of at least $30,000,000 from the issuance of new equity capital. All other terms of the L&F License Agreement remain in effect.

The L&F License Agreement will terminate at the expiration of the last-to-expire of all royalty payment obligations under the L&F License Agreement and we have the right to terminate the L&F License Agreement upon 60 days’ notice.

The L&F License is terminable by either party if the other party is in material breach of the agreement, and has not cured the breach within 60 days of notice. If we fail to make payments under the agreement, L&F Research may terminate the agreement on 10 days’ notice. Further, L&F Research has the right to terminate the L&F License Agreement immediately upon written notice to us if we directly, or through assistance granted to a third party, commence any interference or opposition proceeding with respect to, challenges the validity or enforceability of, or opposes any extension of or the grant of a supplementary protection certificate with respect to, any Licensor Patent Right (as defined in the agreement).

In the event we do not complete the Throughput Milestones by the Throughput Milestone Completion Date (as each term is defined in the agreement), L&F Research may elect upon 90 days written notice to us to either (a) terminate the agreement in its entirety; or (b) terminate the exclusivity provisions of the agreement and convert the license to non-exclusive. However, before L&F Research terminates the agreement or terminates exclusivity, the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a revised date for the relevant Throughput Milestone if we fail to achieve a particular Throughput Milestone by the specified time occurs because of a Force Majeure Event or a Significant Change (as those terms are defined in the agreement). In the event we cannot agree as to whether a Force Majeure Event or Significant Change has occurred by the later of the date of failure to meet the original Throughput Milestone Completion Date or 15 days after our notice that a Force Majeure Event or Significant Change has occurred, L&F Research may exercise its termination rights.

InflamaCORE, LLC License Agreement

We entered into a License Agreement with InflamaCORE, LLC (“InflamaCORE”) effective as of April 18, 2019 (the “InflamaCORE License Agreement”), pursuant to which InflamCORE granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to patents, intellectual property rights, technology, and know-how to and for the development and commercialization of IC 100, in all therapeutic and diagnostic uses in all diseases and conditions. InflamaCORE was founded by the IC 100 inventors and researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, who licensed the intellectual from the University of Miami and Selexis SA, a cell line development company in Switzerland. Pursuant to the InflamaCORE License Agreement, we (i) paid InflamaCORE an upfront license fee of $346,321.08 upon signing; (ii) agreed to make additional payments to InflamaCORE upon the achievement of certain development milestones up to an aggregate maximum of $22.5 million; (iii) agreed to pay InflamaCORE royalty payments on net sales of certain resulting products upon the achievement of certain net sales milestones, ranging from 5% to 10% depending on the level of net sales; (iv) agreed to pay University of Miami royalty payments on net sales of certain resulting products upon the achievement of certain net sales milestones, ranging from 3% to 6% of net sales, depending on the level of net sales; and (v) were granted a sublicense to all third-party technologies, including the Selexis cell line technology, and agreed to pay to InflamaCORE the obligations of their Selexis license. Pursuant to the Selexis license, we paid an upfront license fee to Selexis of CHF 50,000. We are also obligated to pay to Selexis (through reimbursement of InflamaCORE) (i) an annual maintenance fee of CHF 10,000, (ii) payments upon the achievement of certain development milestones up to an aggregate maximum of approximately CHF 1.1 million, and (iii) a royalty payment on net sales equal to a low single digit. Additionally, upon the execution of and pursuant to the InflamaCORE License Agreement, we issued (i) 200,000 shares of our common stock to the University of Miami, (ii) and four (4) warrants to InflamaCORE (the “InflamaCORE Warrants”) exercisable in the aggregate for 1,000,000 shares of our common stock upon certain terms and conditions set forth in the InflamaCORE License Agreement and the InflamaCORE Warrants.

The InflamaCORE License Agreement will terminate at the expiration of the last-to-expire of all royalty payment obligations under the InflamaCORE License Agreement and we have the right to terminate the InflamaCORE License Agreement upon 60 days’ notice. The license may be terminated by either party if the other party is in material breach of the agreement, and has not cured the breach within 60 days of notice. If we fail to make payments under the agreement, InflamaCORE may terminate the agreement on 10 days’ notice. Further, the agreement may be terminated by a party upon the bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party.

Upon any termination of the InflamaCORE License Agreement, the license granted to us will automatically terminate and revert back to InflamaCORE.

Manufacturing

We do not currently own or operate any facilities to formulate, manufacture, test, store, package or distribute VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we are developing or may seek to develop and do not currently have the capabilities to conduct such activities. We currently rely on third parties to manufacture, store and test VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we may seek to develop. We will depend on third-party suppliers and manufacturing organizations for all our required raw materials and drug substance and to formulate, manufacture, test, store, package and distribute clinical trial quantities of VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we may seek to develop. We plan to continue developing our network of third-party suppliers and manufacturing organizations, but in the future we may decide to consider investing in our own manufacturing and supply capabilities if there is a technical need or a strategic or financial benefit.

We have internal personnel and utilizes consultants with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical and quality experience to oversee our contract manufacturing and testing activities. Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose procedural and documentation requirements, including, but not limited to, record-keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance. Our systems, procedures and contractors are required to be in compliance with these regulations and are assessed through regular monitoring and formal audits.

Research and Development

We spent approximately $6.5 million on research and development activities in 2020, $2.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2021, and $5.4 million for the Predecessor period from January 1, 2022 through December 12, 2022 and $0.4 million for the Successor Period from December 13, 2022 through December 31 2022.

Sales and Marketing

We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution capabilities. To commercialize any product that is approved for commercial sale, we must either develop our own sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure or collaborate with third parties that have such commercial infrastructure and relevant marketing and sales experience. We expect to be able to build our commercial infrastructure over time in advance of any anticipated launch of our products, and we may rely on licensing, co-sale and co-promotion agreements with strategic partners for the commercialization of our products. If we establish the commercial infrastructure to support the potential marketing of VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we may seek to develop, such commercial infrastructure could be expected to include a targeted sales force supported by sales management, internal sales support, an internal marketing group and distribution support. In order to establish the proper commercial infrastructure, we would need to invest significant financial and management resources prior to any approval of VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we may seek to develop.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is highly competitive. These competitors include many public and private companies, universities, governmental agencies and other research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to our product candidates that we seek to develop or address similar indications. Many competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we possess and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market their products. We also expect that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to our products may increase over time. Competitive factors in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry include product efficacy, safety, ease of use, price, demonstrated cost-effectiveness, marketing effectiveness, service, reputation, and access to technical information. Any products that we develop and seek to commercialize may not be able to compete with the products of our competitors with respect to one or more of these considerations.

For instance, there are currently several other companies with drugs in clinical development for FSGS, targeting inflammation, fibrosis, and vasoconstriction. Among our competitors, there are products in various phases of development, including compounds in Phase 2 and Phase 3 of development. However, we believe that VAR 200 may be the only drug currently in development that addresses lipid accumulation in the glomerulus. The current treatment algorithm for renal disease includes multiple drug therapies to address the various pathways contributing to renal disease. We believe that VAR 200 could potentially be used in combination with other treatment modalities addressing other pathogenic pathways.

Additionally, there are a number of other companies developing drugs targeting the inflammasome pathway, some of which have clinical trials underway in multiple indications. Among these competitors, we are aware of a number of products in various stages of development, including those with Phase 2 clinical trials underway or completed, encompassing indications such as gout, Schnitzler’s Syndrome, COVID-19 respiratory symptoms, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, familial cold auto-inflammatory syndrome, corneal epithelial defects, dry/wet macular degeneration, diabetic retinal disease, and melanoma. Additionally, there are a number of Phase 1 clinical trials underway encompassing indications such as CAPS, mild COVID-19, systolic heart failure, and solid tumors, in addition to healthy subjects. We believe that IC 100 may be the only monoclonal antibody targeting the ASC component of the inflammasome, which can potentially inhibit multiple types of inflammasomes to prevent initiation and perpetuation of inflammation.

Intellectual Property

We seek to protect our products and technologies through a combination of patents, regulatory exclusivity, and proprietary know-how. Our goal is to obtain, maintain, and enforce patent protection for our products, formulations, processes, methods, and other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our current compositions and methods and any future compositions and methods under development, proprietary information, and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, where applicable, both in the United States and abroad. However, even patent protection may not always afford complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents. For additional information, see section entitled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Pursuant to the L&F License Agreement, we have an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to the inventions relating to 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (“2HPβCD”) for the treatment of kidney disease in humans, including FSGS, as described in certain method-of-use patents and pending applications filed in the United States and selected foreign countries (Canada, China, Europe, Japan, and Mexico) from two international patent applications filed pursuant to the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”). Currently, there are 3 issued United States patents and 7 foreign granted or allowed applications. These patents, and any patents that issue from the pending applications, are anticipated to have a term to at least 2033, absent of any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Pursuant to the InflamaCORE License Agreement, we have an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to the inventions relating to recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of inflammatory responses and inflammation mediated by inflammasomes and components thereof, including but not limited to IC 100 which is a humanized IgG4 antibody directed against a specific amino acid sequence of the pyrin domain of Apoptosis-associated speck-like protein (“ASC”). The patent portfolio for IC 100 includes 5 patent families covering composition of matter, biomarker, and method-of-use patents and their related national stage filings in the United States and selected foreign countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Europe, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam). Currently, there are 5 issued United States patents, 3 foreign granted or allowed applications and 56 pending applications. These patents, and any patents that issue from the pending applications, are anticipated to have a term at least 2028, absent of any patent term adjustments or extensions.

At this time, ZyVersa has no patents or patent applications outside of those connected to the L&F or InflamaCORE License Agreements.

Even though we have licensed issued patents, there is no guarantee that the validity of the patents will be upheld if challenged by a third party. There can be no assurance that any of our intellectual property rights will afford us any protection from competition.

On February 24, 2023, we filed two trademark applications for (1) Cholesterol Efflux Mediator™ and (2) Lipid Efflux Mediator™ for pharmaceutical preparations for treatment of renal diseases and disorders. No other applications for trademark protection have been filed for any names or logos for products or technologies in development. We plan to seek trademark protection inside and outside of the United States where available and when appropriate. We intend to use these registered marks in connection with our pharmaceutical research and development, including proprietary technologies, as well as our product candidates.

Regulatory Matters

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug products, biological products, and medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), and other federal laws and regulations. These FDA-regulated products are also subject to state and local statutes and regulations, as well as applicable laws or regulations in foreign countries. The FDA, and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries, impose substantial requirements on the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record-keeping, approval, post-approval monitoring, advertising, promotion, marketing, sampling and import and export of FDA-regulated products.

Government Regulation

Any product development activities related to VAR 200, IC 100, and any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or acquire in the future will be subject to extensive regulation by various government authorities, including the FDA and other federal, state and local statutes and regulations and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, which regulate the design, research, clinical and non-clinical development, testing, manufacturing, storage, distribution, import, export, labeling, advertising and marketing of pharmaceutical products and devices. Generally, before a new drug can be sold, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific to each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. The data is often generated in two distinct development states: pre-clinical and clinical. VAR 200, IC 100, and any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or acquire in the future must be approved by the FDA through the New Drug Application (“NDA”), Biologic Licensing Application (“BLA”) or other applicable approval process before they may be legally marketed in the United States.

The clinical stages of development can generally be divided into three sequential phases that may overlap: Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. In Phase 1, generally, small numbers of healthy volunteers are exposed to single escalating doses and then multiple escalating doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these studies is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the drug. Phase 2 trials typically involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected. In some instances, formal Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials may not be deemed necessary or required by the FDA. Such is often the case when the safety and efficacy of an API is considered to be well understood by the FDA. In Phase 3 studies, the drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely. Under established regulatory pathways, pharmaceutical products with APIs equal or similar to those known by the FDA often enter more streamlined development programs than compounds entirely new to the agency.

Post-approval studies, sometime referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies may be used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic condition or to gain additional indications for a medication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 studies.

Development of Drugs and Biological Products in the United States

In the United States, 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. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawal from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties.

Prior to the start of human clinical studies for a new drug or biological product in the United States, pre-clinical laboratory and animal tests are often performed under the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices regulations. The Sponsor must submit the results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data and literature and a proposed clinical protocol to the FDA as part of the Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application. Similar filings are required in other countries. The amount of data that must be supplied in the IND depends on the phase of the study. Phase 1 studies typically require less data than larger Phase 3 studies. A clinical plan must be submitted to the FDA prior to commencement of a clinical trial. If the FDA has concerns about the clinical plan or the safety of the proposed study, they may suspend or terminate the study at any time. Studies must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practice and regular reporting of study progress and any adverse experiences is required. Studies are also subject to review by independent institutional review boards responsible for overseeing studies at particular investigator sites and protecting human research study subjects. An independent institutional review board may also suspend or terminate a study once initiated. Accordingly, submission of an IND does not guarantee approval by the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or, once begun, that issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

Review and Approval of Drugs and Biological Products in the United States

Following completion of Phase 3 trials, data from the trials are analyzed to determine safety and effectiveness. Complete development data is then filed with the FDA in a NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling for the product and information about the manufacturing and testing processes and facilities that will be used to ensure product quality. The NDA and BLA applications are the vehicle through which drug sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new pharmaceutical product for sale and marketing in the United States. The NDA or BLA must contain proof of safety, purity, potency and efficacy, which entails extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing. The data gathered during the animal studies and human clinical trials of an IND become part of the NDA or BLA.

The review and evaluation of a NDA or BLA by the FDA may take several years to complete. The FDA may conduct pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements and may also audit data from clinical and pre-clinical trials.

The FDA may place conditions on approvals including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) to assure the safe use of the agent. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the Sponsor of the application must submit a proposed REMS, which may include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

IND and Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biological Products

Prior to commencing a human clinical trial of a drug or biological product, an IND, which contains the results of preclinical studies along with other information, such as information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed protocol, must be submitted to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug or biological product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be conducted during drug development.

An independent Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the investigational plan for the trial before it commences at that site. Informed written consent must be obtained from each trial subject.

Human clinical trials for drug and biological products typically are conducted in sequential phases that may overlap:

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations, including good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements, which are intended to protect the rights, safety and well-being of trial participants, define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors and ensure clinical trial data integrity. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board or the Sponsor, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements.

During the development of a new drug or biologic, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase II clinical trials, and before a NDA or BLA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the Sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice and for the Sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end-of-Phase II clinical trials meetings to discuss their Phase II clinical trials results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase III registration trial that they believe will support approval of the new drug/biologic.

An investigational drug product that is a combination of two different drugs in the same dosage form must comply with an additional rule that requires that each component make a contribution to the claimed effects of the drug product. This typically requires larger studies that test the drug against each of its components.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, biologics, and devices, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial, is made public as part of the registration. Sponsors also are obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the clinical trial results can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

The New Drug Application (NDA) and Biologics License Application (BLA) Approval Processes

Our drug or biological products must be approved by the FDA through the NDA and BLA approval processes, respectively, before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. These FDA-required processes for drugs or biological products to be marketed in the U.S. generally involve the following:

In order to obtain approval to market a drug or biological product in the U.S., a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug for the proposed indication. The cost of preparing and submitting a NDA or BLA is substantial. Each NDA or BLA submission requires a user fee payment (exceeding $2.5 million in fiscal year 2019), unless a waiver or exemption applies. The manufacturer or sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual establishment fees. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent non-clinical studies, or 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 information. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators that meet GCP requirements.

Companies also must develop additional information about the characteristics of the drug or biological product and finalize a process for the NDA or BLA sponsor’s manufacturing the product in compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate, and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the finished drug or biological product. 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.

The results of drug or biological product development, non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, tests conducted on the drug or biological product, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of a NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product.

The FDA reviews all NDAs or BLAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. FDA may request additional information rather than accept a NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the NDA or BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a NDA or BLA to conduct an initial review to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review.

Once the NDA or BLA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to ensure the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA has agreed to specific performance goals on the review of NDAs and BLA’s and seeks to review standard NDAs or BLAs within 12 months and prior review biologics within 8 months from submission of the respective applications. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA or BLA, it will issue either an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter indicates that the application is not ready for approval. A complete response letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. Even if such additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug or biological products or drug or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully and generally follows such recommendations when making decisions.

Before approving a NDA or BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product 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. After the FDA evaluates the NDA or BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either the approval letter or the complete response letter. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, its complete response letter typically will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information, which may include additional large-scale clinical testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. This may significantly delay further review of the application.

If the FDA finds that a clinical site did not conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP regulations, the FDA may determine the data generated by the clinical site should be excluded from the primary efficacy analyses provided in the NDA or BLA. Additionally, notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA or BLA, the FDA will issue the approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in 2 or 6 months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing and distribution of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy after a product is approved, including additional clinical trials and may impose other conditions, including labeling restrictions, which can materially affect the product’s potential market and profitability. These so-called Phase IV or post-approval clinical trials may be a condition for continuing drug approval. The results of Phase IV clinical trials can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information. In addition, the FDA now has express statutory authority to require sponsors to conduct post-marketing trials to specifically address safety issues identified by the agency. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems or safety issues are identified following initial marketing.

The FDA also has authority to require a REMS to ensure that the benefits of a drug or biological product outweigh its risks. A sponsor may also voluntarily propose a REMS as part of the NDA submission. The need for a REMS is determined as part of the review of the NDA or BLA. Elements of a REMS may include “dear doctor letters,” a medication guide, more elaborate targeted educational programs, and in some cases elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”), which is the most restrictive REMS. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. These elements are negotiated as part of the NDA or BLA approval, and in some cases the approval date may be delayed. Once implemented, REMS are subject to periodic assessment and modification.

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

Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or might contain significant limitations on use in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications, or in the form of onerous risk management plans, restrictions on distribution or post-marketing trial requirements. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Delay in obtaining, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for our products, or obtaining approval but for significantly limited use, would harm our business. Also, 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 products in development. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. or foreign governmental action.

Hatch-Waxman Act

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide a process for listing patents pertaining to approved products in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the Orange Book) and for a competitor seeking approval of an application that references a product with listed patents to make certifications pertaining to such patents. In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide for a statutory protection, known as non-patent exclusivity, against the FDA’s acceptance or approval of certain competitor applications.

Patent Term Restoration

Patent term restoration can compensate for time lost during drug development and the regulatory review process by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of a NDA, plus the time between the submission date of a NDA and the approval of that application, provided the Sponsor acted with diligence. Patent term restorations, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through a NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed by the NDA holder in the drug’s application or otherwise are published in the FDA’s Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”). An ANDA permits marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredient(s) in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical studies or clinical trials to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved under and ANDA are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (i) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (ii) such patent has expired; (iii) the date on which such patent expires; or (iv) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. The applicant also may elect to submit a “section viii” statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the reference NDA holder and patent owners assert a patent challenge directed to one of the Orange Book listed patents within 45 days of the receipt of the paragraph IV certification notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the thirty-month stay. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the branded reference drug has expired. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation.

Market Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain drug applications. The Hatch-Waxman Act establishes periods of regulatory exclusivity for certain approved drug products, during which the FDA cannot approve (or in some cases accept) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that relies on the branded reference drug. For instance, the FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of a NDA for a new chemical entity (“NCE”). A drug is a NCE if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification. The Hatch- Waxman Act also provides three years of marketing exclusivity to the holder of a NDA (including a 505(b)(2) NDA) for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) conducted or sponsored by the applicant were deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, including, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three- year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDA for drugs that include the innovation that required the new clinical data, but does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active ingredient. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA is required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the non-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Biosimilar Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) creates an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilar products under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”). A biosimilar product or “biosimilar” is a biological product that is highly similar to and has no clinically meaningful differences from an existing FDA-licensed reference product. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and at least one clinical study, absent a waiver. A biosimilar product may be deemed interchangeable with a prior licensed product if it is biosimilar and meets additional requirements under the BPCIA, including that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. An interchangeable product may be substituted for the reference product without the involvement of the prescriber.

Under the BPCIA, no section 351(k) application for a biosimilar may be submitted for four (4) years from the date of licensure of the reference product. Additionally, a reference biologic is granted twelve (12) years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, During this twelve (12)-year exclusivity period, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product submitted under section 351(a) of the PHSA containing the competing sponsor’s own pre-clinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product may obtain exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biologics for the same condition of use for the lesser of (i) one (1) year after first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar; (ii) eighteen (18) months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge; (iii) eighteen (18) months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference biologic in favor of the first interchangeable biosimilar applicant; or (iv) forty-two (42) months after the first interchangeable biosimilar’s application has been approved if a patent lawsuit is ongoing within the forty-two (42)-month period.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

Fast Track Designation

Fast track designation may be granted for a product that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. The sponsor of an investigational drug product may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. At the time of NDA filing, the FDA will determine whether to grant priority review designation. Additionally, fast track designation may be withdrawn if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

The FDA may also accelerate the approval of a designated Breakthrough Therapy, which is a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The sponsor of a Breakthrough Therapy may request the FDA to designate the drug as a Breakthrough Therapy at the time of, or any time after, the submission of a IND for the drug. If the FDA designates a drug as a Breakthrough Therapy, it must take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include (i) holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the drug; (ii) providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; (iii) involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; (iv) assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and (v) taking steps to ensure that the design of the clinical trials is as efficient as practicable, when scientifically appropriate, such as by minimizing the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment.

Accelerated Approval

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

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The first NDA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular active moiety to treat a rare disease for which it has such designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or in instances of drug supply issues. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Other benefits of orphan drug designation include tax credits for certain research and an exemption from the NDA user fee.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, with certain exceptions.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity — patent or nonpatent — for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Post-Marketing FDA Regulations

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA and other federal and state regulatory authorities, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting to applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the products or labeling or changes of site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process.

The FDA, state and foreign regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA, state or foreign regulatory authorities, which may include the following:

Any of these sanctions could result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large amount of resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state and foreign regulations. In the United States, the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotion materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), a part of the FDCA. Once a product is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulations by the FDA. The FDA regulations require the products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP, and NDA or BLA holders must list their products and register their manufacturing establishments with the FDA. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws.

NDA or BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms. These firms are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violations could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute products manufactured, processed or tested by them. Newly-discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures.

Healthcare and Reimbursement Regulation

If VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we seek to develop, are approved by the FDA, government coverage and reimbursement policies will both directly and indirectly affect our ability to successfully commercialize the product, and such coverage and reimbursement policies will be affected by future healthcare reform measures. Government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations generally decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for healthcare. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often provide reimbursement for products based on the level at which the government (through the Medicare or Medicaid programs) provides reimbursement for such treatments. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Many patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Sales of our products will therefore depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, to the extent they are reimbursed by government health administration authorities, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. The market for our products will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ formularies, or lists of products or treatments for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. Also, third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. Coverage and reimbursements for therapeutic products can differ significantly from payor to payor. A third-party payors’ decision to provide coverage for a medical product or service does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or services, or to provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of or products to each payor separately, with no assurance that adequate coverage and reimbursement will be obtained.

In the United States and other potentially significant markets for VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we seek to develop, government authorities and other third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. For example, third-party payors are attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices. Further, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions have enacted or are considering a number of additional legislative and regulatory proposals designed to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, enacted in March 2010. In the future, there may be additional proposals relating to the reform of the United States health care system, some of which could further limit the prices we are able to charge for our products, or the amounts of reimbursement available for our products. If drug products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

Further, if a drug product is reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal or state healthcare programs, we, and our business activities, including but not limited to our sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the False Claims Act, as amended, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, as amended, other healthcare fraud and abuse laws and similar state laws. Additionally, if an outpatient prescription drug product is reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid, pricing and rebate programs must comply with, as applicable, the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.

Other Regulatory Matters and Compliance Requirements

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the United States, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments. Sales, marketing and scientific/educational programs must also comply with federal and state fraud and abuse laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair completion laws.

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

The Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, imposes certain 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”— 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 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 attorneys’ 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, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, California recently enacted legislation, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which went into effect January 1, 2020. The CCPA, among other things, creates new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. The CCPA also creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach.

Corruption Laws

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar foreign anti-corruption laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments or providing anything of value to improperly influence foreign government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business, or obtaining an unfair advantage. In recent years, there has been a substantial increase in the global enforcement of anti-corruption laws. Our anticipated non-U.S. operations and our anticipated expansion into additional countries outside the United States, including in developing countries, could increase the risk of such violations. Violations of these laws may result in severe criminal or civil sanctions, could disrupt our business, and could adversely affect our reputation, business and results of operations or financial condition.

International Regulation of Drugs

Before we can market VAR 200, IC 100 and any other product candidate that we seek to develop, in any jurisdiction outside of the United States, we must obtain the necessary marketing authorizations in such jurisdiction. Many such jurisdictions require extensive safety and efficacy data similar to the data required by the FDA before granting marketing authorization. We may not be successful in obtaining marketing authorizations that we seek outside of the United States. If we are successful in obtaining marketing authorization in one jurisdiction, including the United States, that authorization does not ensure that we will receive marketing authorization in any other jurisdiction. The authorizations that are required to market a pharmaceutical product vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If we obtain marketing approval in any jurisdiction outside of the United States, we will be subject to ongoing regulation in such jurisdiction, consistent with the ongoing regulations to which we would be subject in the United States.

International Data Privacy and Security Laws

Certain non-U.S. laws, such as the GDPR govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, in Europe, the GDPR went into effect in May 2018 and introduces strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. The GDPR also increases the scrutiny of transfers of personal data from clinical trial sites located in the EEA to the United States and other jurisdictions that the European Commission does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws. Further, recent legal developments in Europe have created complexity and compliance uncertainty regarding certain transfers of information from the EEA to the United States. For example, on June 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, declared the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, or the Privacy Shield, to be invalid. As a result, Privacy Shield is no longer a valid mechanism for transferring personal data from the EEA to the United States. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the standard contractual clauses will also be invalidated by the European courts or legislature, which seems possible given the rationale behind the CJEU’s concerns about U.S. law and practice on government surveillance. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Additionally, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and the EEA, companies have to comply with the GDPR and the GDPR as incorporated into United Kingdom national law, the latter regime having the ability to separately fine up to the greater of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, for example around how data can lawfully be transferred between each jurisdiction, which exposes us to further compliance risk. In Canada, PIPEDA and similar provincial laws impose obligations on companies with respect to processing personal information, including health-related information, and provides individuals certain rights with respect to such information, including the right to access and challenge the accuracy of their personal information held by an organization. Failure to comply with PIPEDA could result in significant fines and penalties.

Properties

On January 18, 2019, the Company entered into a lease agreement (the “Lease”) for approximately 3,502 square feet of office space located at 2200 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 208, Weston, Florida 33326. The lease term is for 60 months beginning in January 2019 and ends in January 2024. We believe that our existing facility is adequate for our current needs, but additional office space may be required in connection with any anticipated expansion of our staff.

Employees

As of December 31, 2022, we had seven (7) full time employees. All our employees are engaged in administration, finance, research and development, clinical, regulatory and business development functions. We believe our relations with our employees are good. In addition, we utilize and will continue to utilize consultants, clinical research organizations and third parties to perform our pre-clinical studies, clinical studies, manufacturing and regulatory functions.

Legal Proceedings

We are not currently party to or aware of being subject to any material legal proceedings. However, we may from time to time become a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation could impact our business due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the name “Larkspur Health Acquisition Corp.” on March 17, 2021 under the laws of the State of Delaware for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination, involving one or more other businesses. On December 12, 2022, we changed our name to “ZyVersa Therapeutics, Inc.” in connection with the Business Combination. Our principal executive offices are located at 2200 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 208, Weston, Florida 33326. Our telephone number is (754) 231-1688 and our website address is https://www.zyversa.com. On our website, investors can obtain, free of charge, a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Code of Conduct and Business Ethics, including disclosure related to any amendments or waivers thereto, other reports and any amendments thereto filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such material electronically with, or furnish it to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). None of the information posted on our website is incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The SEC also maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding the Company and other companies that file materials with the SEC electronically.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K and the information incorporated herein by reference contain references to registered or common law trademarks, service marks and trade names owned by us or other companies. Solely for convenience, such trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this report and the information incorporated herein, including logos, artwork, and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks, service marks and trade names. We do not intend to use or display of other companies’ trademarks, service marks or trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies. Other trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners.

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

An investment in our common stock is speculative and illiquid and involves a high degree of risk including the risk of a loss of your entire investment. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information contained in this report and our other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The risks set forth below are not the only ones facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties may exist that could also adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition. If any of the following risks actually materialize, our business, financial condition and/or operations could suffer. In such event, the value of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or a substantial portion of the money that you pay for our common stock.

Summary

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties. The following summarizes key risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect us. You should read this summary together with the more detailed risk factors contained below.

Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Position and Need for Capital

Our current and future product candidates may never be approved or achieve commercial market acceptance.

Our success depends on the market’s confidence that we can develop product candidates for patients with high unmet medical needs, optimize health outcomes and improve patients’ quality of life. Failure of our current and future product candidates, or those jointly developed with our collaborators, to develop or perform as expected could significantly impair our business. We and our collaborators may not succeed in achieving commercial market acceptance for our current or future product candidates due to a number of factors, including:

Additionally, our business could be negatively impacted due to changes in our research and development plans, financial constraints, the regulatory environment, negative publicity about our product candidates or competing products both of which are circumstances outside of our control. We may not be successful in addressing these or other factors that might affect the market acceptance of our product candidates and technologies. Failure to develop, obtain approval or achieve commercial market acceptance of our product candidates could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are a development stage company with a limited operating history and no revenues, and there are a number of factors that may affect our prospects.

We are a development stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and no revenues. The likelihood of success of our business plan must be considered in light of the problems, substantial expenses, difficulties, complications and delays frequently encountered in connection with developing and expanding early-stage businesses and the regulatory and competitive environment in which we operate. Pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking, involves a substantial degree of risk and is a capital-intensive business. Accordingly, you should consider our prospects in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by development stage pharmaceutical companies such as our Company, and note that we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully address these risks.

Our operations to date have been primarily limited to our organizational and capital-raising activities, negotiating our license agreements, and conducting development activities for VAR 200 and IC 100. We have not demonstrated our ability to successfully complete large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization or manage an operational public company. Because of our limited operating history, we have limited insight into trends that may emerge and affect our business, and errors may be made in developing an approach to address those trends and the other challenges faced by development stage pharmaceutical companies such as our Company. Failure to adequately respond to such trends and challenges could cause our business, results of operations and financial condition to suffer or fail. Further, our limited operating history may make it difficult for our stockholders to make any predictions about our likelihood of future success or viability.

Factors relating to our business that may affect our prospects may include other such as:

We have never been profitable. To date, we do not have data to support regulatory approval of any of our drug products, we have no products approved for commercial sale in any jurisdiction, and we have not generated any revenue from product sales. As a result, our ability to curtail our losses and reach profitability is unproven, and we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We have never been profitable and do not expect to be profitable for the foreseeable future. As of December 31, 2022, our accumulated net loss was approximately $71,865,602, inclusive of the Predecessor period. We have devoted most of our financial resources to our organizational and capital-raising activities and negotiating our license agreements, and other strategic partnerships and collaborations. We have not completed development of any product candidate through the receipt of marketing approval, and we have therefore not generated any revenues from product sales. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. We expect to incur increased expenses as we continue the clinical development of VAR 200 and preclinical development of IC 100 and other product candidates that we may seek to develop and for which we may seek marketing approval in the United States and elsewhere. We also expect an increase in our expenses associated with creating additional infrastructure (including hiring additional personnel) to commence clinical trials and continue the development and commercialization of VAR 200 and IC 100 and other product candidates that we may seek to develop. As a result, we expect to continue to incur net losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future. These net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

To date, we have financed our operations through the sale of our equity securities. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. If we are unable to develop and commercialize VAR 200, IC 100, or any other product candidates that we may seek to develop, either alone or with collaborators, or if revenues from any product candidate that receives marketing approval are insufficient, we may not be able to raise additional capital and will not achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability.

We may be unable to continue as a going concern.

We are a development stage pharmaceutical company with no commercial products. Our primary product candidates are in the process of being developed and will require significant additional preclinical and clinical development and investment before they could potentially be commercialized. As a result, we have not generated any revenue from operations since inception, and we have incurred substantial net losses to date. Moreover, our cash position is vastly inadequate to support our business plans and substantial additional funding will be needed in order to pursue those plans, which include research and development of our primary product candidates, seeking regulatory approval for those product candidates, and pursuing their commercialization in the United States and other markets. Our independent registered public accounting firm’s report contains an explanatory paragraph that expresses doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Those circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In particular, we believe that our current cash and cash equivalents on hand will only be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash requirements through the second quarter of 2023. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we might have to liquidate our assets and the values we receive for our assets in liquidation or dissolution could be significantly lower than the values reflected in our financial statements. In addition, our lack of cash resources and our potential inability to continue as a going concern may materially adversely affect the value of our capital stock and our ability to raise new capital or to enter into critical contractual relations with third parties.

The Company identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting. If the Company is not able to remediate the material weakness and otherwise maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, the reliability of its financial reporting, investor confidence in the Company and the value of its common stock could be adversely affected.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“Section 404”), requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and provide a management report on internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis.

During the audit for the 2022 fiscal year, we identified a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting because we did not design and implement effective controls over the accounting for significant and complex non-routine transactions. 

Our management plans to establish procedures to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting on an ongoing basis and are committed to taking further action and implementing necessary enhancements or improvements. Management expects to complete its assessment of the design and operating effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting during 2023. However, the material weakness will not be considered remediated until the applicable controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded, through testing, that these controls are operating effectively.

If our steps are insufficient to successfully remediate the material weaknesses and otherwise establish and maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, the reliability of our financial reporting, investor confidence in us and the value of our common stock could be materially and adversely affected. Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable and timely financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to reasonably detect and prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. For as long as we are a “smaller reporting company” under the U.S. securities laws, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

Moreover, we do not expect that disclosure controls or internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered 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, have been detected. The failure of our control systems to prevent error or fraud could materially adversely impact us.

We will need additional capital to develop and commercialize our product candidates. If we are unable to raise sufficient capital, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. We expect our research and development expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we start clinical trials for VAR 200 and conduct preclinical development of IC 100. We have no commitments or arrangements for any additional financing to fund our development and commercialization efforts for VAR 200, IC 100, or any other product candidate that we may seek to develop. We will need to raise substantial additional capital to develop and commercialize VAR 200, IC 100, and any other product candidate that we may seek to develop. Because successful development of VAR 200 or IC 100 is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds required to complete their development and commercialization.

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of revenue from VAR 200, IC 100, or any other product candidate that we may seek to develop, if ever, we expect to finance future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate collaborations and licensing arrangements. Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of, or curtail, our operations. To the extent that we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, or securities convertible into equity securities, the ownership of our then existing stockholders may be diluted, which dilution could be significant depending on the price at which we may be able to sell our securities. Also, if we raise additional capital through the incurrence of indebtedness, we may become subject to additional covenants restricting our business activities, the holders of debt instruments may have rights and privileges senior to those of our equity investors, and servicing the interest and principal repayment obligations under such debt instruments could divert funds that would otherwise be available to support research and development, clinical or commercialization activities. Corresponding, we may not be able to enter into collaborations that we seek to establish. To the extent that we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. We may seek to access the public or private capital markets whenever conditions are favorable, even if we do not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time.

Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

We are subject to various U.S. anti-corruption laws and other anti-bribery and anti-kickback laws and regulations.

We are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (the “FCPA”), and other anticorruption, anti-bribery, and anti-money laundering laws in the jurisdictions in which it does business. These laws generally prohibit us and our employees from improperly influencing government officials or commercial parties in order to obtain or retain business, direct business to any person or gain any improper advantage. The FCPA and other applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws also may hold us liable for acts of corruption and bribery committed by our third-party business partners, representatives and agents who are acting on our behalf. We and our third-party business partners, representatives and agents may have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or state-owned or affiliated entities and it may be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of these third-party business partners and intermediaries and its employees, representatives, contractors and agents, even if it does not explicitly authorize such activities. These laws also require that we keep accurate books and records and maintain internal controls and compliance procedures designed to prevent any such actions. While we have policies and procedures to address compliance with such laws, it cannot assure that its employees and agents will not take actions in violation of its policies or applicable law, for which it may be ultimately held responsible and its exposure for violating these laws increases as its international presence expands and as it increases sales and operations in foreign jurisdictions. Any violation of the FCPA or other applicable anti-bribery, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws could result in whistleblower complaints, adverse media coverage, investigations, imposition of significant legal fees, loss of export privileges, severe criminal or civil sanctions or suspension or debarment from U.S. government contracts, substantial diversion of management’s attention, a drop in our stock price or overall adverse consequences to our business, all of which may have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and operating results.

Our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Occurrences of epidemics or pandemics, depending on their scale, may cause different degrees of disruption to the regional, state and local economies in which we operate our business and develop our product candidates. The current COVID-19 pandemic has had and could continue to have a material adverse effect on the value, operating results and financial condition of our business. Extraordinary actions taken by international, federal, state, and local public health and governmental authorities to contain and combat the outbreak and spread of COVID-19 in regions throughout the world, including travel bans, quarantines, “stay-at-home” orders, suspension of interest accrual and collections on certain federally-backed student loans and similar mandates for many individuals and businesses to substantially restrict daily activities have led to a decrease in consumer activity generally. While the extent and duration of the economic slowdown and high unemployment rates attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic remain uncertain at this time, particularly as new strains of the virus emerge and create potential challenges to vaccination efforts, a continued significant economic slowdown could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Risks Related to Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

A pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak of an infectious disease, such as COVID-19 could cause a disruption to the development of our product candidates.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business. In December 2019, a novel strain of a virus named SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), or coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, surfaced in Wuhan, China and has since spread worldwide. The coronavirus pandemic is evolving, and to date has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, travel restrictions and other public health safety measures. The extent to which the coronavirus impacts our operations or those of our third-party partners, including our preclinical studies or clinical trial operations, will also depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the duration of the outbreak, new information that will emerge concerning the severity of the coronavirus and the actions to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others. The continued spread of COVID-19 globally could adversely impact our preclinical or clinical trial operations in the U.S. and abroad, including our ability to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19. For example, similar to other biopharmaceutical companies, we may experience delays in enrolling our current and/or planned clinical trials. COVID-19 may also affect employees of third-party CROs located in affected geographies that we rely upon to carry out our clinical trials. In addition, the patient populations that our lead and other core product candidates target may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19, which may make it more difficult for us to identify patients able to enroll in our future clinical trials and may impact the ability of enrolled patients to complete any such trials. Any negative impact COVID-19 has to patient enrollment or treatment or the execution of our product candidates could cause costly delays to clinical trial activities, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses, and have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Additionally, timely enrollment in planned clinical trials is dependent upon clinical trial sites which could be adversely affected by global health matters, such as pandemics. We plan to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates in geographies which are currently being affected by the coronavirus. Some factors from the coronavirus outbreak that will delay or otherwise adversely affect enrollment in the clinical trials of our product candidates, as well as our business generally, include:

We have taken temporary precautionary measures intended to help minimize the risk of the virus to our employees, including having all of our employees to work remotely, suspending all non-essential travel worldwide for our employees and discouraging employee attendance at industry events and in-person work-related meetings, which could negatively affect our business. We cannot presently predict the scope and severity of the planned and potential shutdowns or disruptions of businesses and government agencies, such as the SEC or FDA.

Our business is dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, in particular VAR 200 and IC 100.

The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate any revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization or partnering of our product candidates. In the future, we may also become dependent on just one of our product candidates or any future product candidates that we may in-license, acquire or develop. The preclinical and clinical and commercial success of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

VAR 200 may not obtain an FDA designation as an Orphan Drug for FSGS. The FDA received our submission for Orphan Drug Designation on September 17, 2018. Orphan Drug Designation was unable to be granted because (1) the FSGS preclinical model used to support the request reflected prevention rather than treatment of FSGS, which was the proposed indication for VAR 200, and (2) the FDA felt that the prevalence estimate provided was underestimated based on the assumptions and calculations used. We plan to reapply for Orphan Drug Designation when clinical data are available for VAR 200, using additional information to support the prevalence rate of FSGS.

If we are unable to achieve one or more of the above factors, many of which are beyond our control, in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays and increased costs or an inability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our product candidates. Even if regulatory approvals are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates to continue operations.

Preclinical drug development for our product candidate IC 100 is very expensive, time-consuming and uncertain. Our preclinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate pharmacologic activity in therapeutic areas of interest; cause unintended short- or long-term effects in other bodily systems; or produce unexpected toxicity that may alter or risk benefit assessment. The class of compounds reflective of IC 100 has not entered into clinical trials, and the effects of the pharmacologic class are unknown. These and other factors could prevent or delay further development.

The scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to generate and develop its product candidates are relatively recent. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing agents based on our approach is both preliminary and limited. IC 100 represents a novel therapeutic modality and the successful development may require additional studies and efforts to optimize its therapeutic potential. IC 100 may not demonstrate in patients the therapeutic properties ascribed to it in the laboratory or preclinical studies, and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or even harmful ways. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize IC 100 it may never become profitable and the value of its capital stock may decline.

IC 100 is a relatively novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval, if at all.

We have concentrated its research and development efforts on a limited number of initial targeted disease indications. There can be no assurance that we will not experience problems or delays in developing its current or future indications and that such problems or delays will not cause unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems can be solved. Preclinical data generated on IC 100 along with a proposed clinical development plan requires review and allowance by the FDA under an Investigational New Drug Application. We have not generated the data to support such an application, and the results of preclinical studies will require FDA review prior to the initiation of clinical studies which may not be granted.

We may not be successful in its efforts to use and expand its development platform to build a pipeline of product candidates.

A key element of our strategy for IC 100 is to use its experienced management and scientific team to evaluate IC 100 in broad range of human disease in order to build a pipeline of product candidates. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in potential product candidates, we may not be able to continue to identify and develop additional product candidates. Even if we are successful in continuing to build its pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development. For example, these potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our approach, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to its financial position. There is no assurance that we will be successful in its preclinical and clinical development, and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals will, in any event, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Clinical drug development for our product candidates is very expensive, time-consuming and uncertain. Our clinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, which could prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

Clinical drug development for our product candidates is very expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and implement and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial sale of a product candidate, we must demonstrate through clinical trials that a product candidate is both safe and effective for use in the target indication, which is impossible to predict. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. Our product candidates are in various stages of development and a failure of one more clinical trial can occur at any stage of testing or at any time during the trial process. We expect that clinical trials for these product candidates will continue for several years, but may take significantly longer than expected to complete. Not all of our product candidates have been tested in humans and the first use in humans may reveal unexpected effects. We have not completed all clinical trials for the approval of any of our product candidates.

We may experience delays in ongoing and future clinical trials for our product candidates and do not know if future clinical trials, if any, will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. In addition, we, any partner with which we currently or may in the future collaborate, the FDA, an Institutional Review Board (an “IRB”) or other regulatory authorities, including state and local agencies and counterpart agencies in foreign countries, may suspend, delay, require modifications to or terminate our clinical trials at any time, for various reasons, including:

We or any partner with which we may collaborate may suffer significant setbacks in our clinical trials similar to the experience of a number of other companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, even after receiving promising results in earlier trials. In the event that we or our potential partners abandon or are delayed in the clinical development efforts related to our product candidates, we may not be able to execute on our business plan effectively and our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects would be harmed.

Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates proceed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards potential approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials.

We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for VAR 200 or IC 100, our early-stage product candidates under applicable regulatory requirements. The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have substantial discretion in the approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of product candidates. The delay, limitation or denial of any regulatory approval would adversely impact commercialization, our potential to generate revenue, our business and our operating results.

We currently have no products approved for sale, and we may never obtain regulatory approval to commercialize any of our current or future product candidates. The research, testing, manufacturing, safety surveillance, efficacy, quality control, recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, sale, marketing, distribution, import, export and reporting of safety and other post-market information related to our drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and in foreign countries, and such regulations differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market any of our current product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of a NDA, BLA or other applicable regulatory filing from the FDA. We are also not permitted to market any of our current product candidates in any foreign countries until we or our partners receive the requisite approval from the applicable regulatory authorities of such countries. To gain approval to market a new drug such as VAR 200 or IC 100, the FDA and/or foreign regulatory authorities must receive, among other things, preclinical and clinical data that adequately demonstrate the safety, purity, potency, efficacy and compliant manufacturing of the drug product for the intended indication applied for in a NDA, BLA or other applicable regulatory filing. The development and approval of new drug products involves a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in nonclinical development, clinical trials, including in Phase 3 clinical development, even after promising results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, findings made while clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Success in clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, or that nonclinical studies will be successful. The results of clinical trials by other parties may not be indicative of the results in trials we or our partners may conduct.

The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have substantial discretion in the drug development and approval process, including the ability to delay, limit drug development or limit or deny approval of product candidates for many reasons. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory body may:

Any delay, limitation or denial in any applicable regulatory approval for any of our product candidates would delay or adversely impact commercialization of our product candidates and would harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Even if our current product candidates or any future product candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians, patients and payors for approved indications, and may not be commercially successful. The degree and rate of adoption of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our current or future product candidates are approved for use but fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption necessary for commercial success, our operating results and financial condition will be adversely affected, which may delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and continue our business.

Our product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration.

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. Numerous pharmaceutical companies, generic drug companies, biotechnology companies, and academic and research institutions are engaged in the development, patenting, manufacturing, and marketing of health care products competitive with those that we are developing, including Travere, Pfizer, Goldfinch Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche and others. Many of our competitors have greater financial resources, marketing capabilities, sales forces, manufacturing capabilities, research and development capabilities, clinical trial expertise, intellectual property portfolios, experience in obtaining patents and regulatory approvals for product candidates and other resources than us. Some of the companies that offer competing products also have a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with our target physicians, which could inhibit our market penetration efforts. In addition, certain of our product candidates, if approved, may compete with a share of some patients’ discretionary budgets and for physicians’ attention within their clinical practices.

We anticipate that, if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will face significant competition from other approved therapies. If approved, our product candidates may also compete with unregulated, unapproved, off-label, and over the counter treatments. Certain of our product candidates, if approved, will present novel therapeutic approaches for the approved indications and will have to compete with existing therapies, some of which are widely known and accepted by physicians and patients. To compete successfully in this market, we will have to demonstrate that the relative cost, safety and efficacy of our approved products, if any, provide an attractive alternative to existing and other new therapies. Such competition could lead to reduced market share for our product candidates and contribute to downward pressure on the pricing of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

We expect to face generic or similar type of product competition for our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Upon the expiration or loss of any patent protection for any of our product candidates that are approved, or upon the “at-risk” launch, despite pending patent infringement litigation against the generic product or its equivalent, by a generic competitor of a generic version of any of our product candidates that are approved, which may be sold at significantly lower prices than our approved product candidates, we could lose a significant portion of sales of that product in a short period of time, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Any product candidates that we commercialize, or that any partner with which we may collaborate commercializes, will be subject to ongoing and continued regulatory review.

Even after we or our partners achieve U.S. regulatory approval for a product candidate, if any, we or our partners will be subject to continued regulatory review and compliance obligations. For example, with respect to our product candidates, the FDA may impose significant restrictions on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or on the conditions of approval. A product candidate’s approval may contain requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and surveillance, including Phase 4 clinical trials or a REMS, to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. We will also be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review with respect to, among other things, the manufacturing, processing, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for our product candidates. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP requirements, with the FDA’s good clinical practice, or GCP, or good agricultural and collections practices, or GACP, requirements and good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA for all of our product candidates in clinical and preclinical development, and for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. To the extent that a product candidate is approved for sale in other countries, we may be subject to similar restrictions and requirements imposed by laws and government regulators in those countries.

If we, our partners, our product candidates or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The regulations, policies or guidance of the FDA and other applicable government agencies may change, and new or additional statutes or government regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or further restrict or regulate post-approval activities. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are not able to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our product candidates, which would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability.

We may in the future conduct clinical trials for our product candidates outside the United States and the FDA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We may in the future choose to conduct one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States, including in Canada, Europe and South America. Although the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or the applicable jurisdiction, acceptance of such study data by the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions. Where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless those data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; the studies were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and the data are considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar requirements. In addition, such foreign studies would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the studies are conducted. There can be no assurance the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other unexpected properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in post-approval regulatory action.

Unforeseen side effects from any of our product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after the approved product has been marketed. Undesirable side effects caused by product candidates could cause us, any partners with which we may collaborate or regulatory authorities to interrupt, modify, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities. Results of clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, trials could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us, or our potential partners, to cease further development of or deny approval of product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Additionally, if we or others identify undesirable side effects, or other previously unknown problems, caused by our product candidates after obtaining U.S. or foreign regulatory approval or other products with the same or related active ingredients, a number of potentially negative consequences could result, including:

Any of the above events resulting from undesirable side effects or other previously unknown problems could prevent us or our potential partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates.

We may face product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability if our insurance coverage for those claims is inadequate.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. This risk exists even if a product is approved for commercial sale by the FDA and manufactured in facilities licensed and regulated by the FDA or an applicable foreign regulatory authority. Our products and product candidates are designed to affect important bodily functions and processes. Any side effects, manufacturing defects, misuse or abuse associated with our product candidates could result in injury to a patient or even death. We cannot offer any assurance that we will not face product liability suits in the future, nor can we assure you that our insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover our liability under any such cases.

In addition, a liability claim may be brought against us even if our product candidates merely appear to have caused an injury. Product liability claims may be brought against us by consumers, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our product candidates, among others. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims we will incur substantial liabilities and reputational harm. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We currently maintain product liability insurance coverage, which may not be sufficient to cover all of our product liability related expenses or losses and may not cover us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost, in sufficient amounts or upon adequate terms to protect us against losses due to product liability. We will need to increase our product liability coverage if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, which will be costly, and we may be unable to obtain this increased product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

If any of our product candidates are approved for marketing and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses, or if physicians misuse our products or use our products off-label, we may become subject to prohibitions on the sale or marketing of our products, product liability claims and significant fines, penalties and sanctions, and our brand and reputation could be harmed.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the marketing and promotional claims that are made about drug and biologic products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses or indications that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling and comparative safety or efficacy claims cannot be made without direct comparative clinical data. If we are found to have promoted off-label uses of any of our product candidates, we may receive warning or untitled letters and become subject to significant liability, which would materially harm our business. Both federal and state governments have levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and have enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would materially harm our business. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted from our business operations, significant legal expenses could be incurred and our brand and reputation could be damaged. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we are deemed by the FDA to have engaged in the promotion of our products for off-label use, we could be subject to FDA regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our business activities constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant penalties, including criminal, civil or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

We cannot, however, prevent a physician from using our product candidates outside of those indications for use when in the physician’s independent professional medical judgment he or she deems appropriate. Physicians may also misuse our product candidates or use improper techniques, potentially leading to adverse results, side effects or injury, which may lead to product liability claims. If our product candidates are misused or used with improper technique, we may become subject to costly litigation by physicians or their patients. Furthermore, the use of our product candidates for indications other than those cleared by the FDA may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our reputation among physicians and patients.

We may choose not to continue developing or commercializing any of our product candidates at any time during development or after approval, which would reduce or eliminate our potential return on investment for those product candidates.

At any time, we may decide to discontinue the development of any of our product candidates or not to continue commercializing one or more of our approved product candidates for a variety of reasons, including the appearance of new technologies that make our product obsolete, competition from a competing product or changes in or failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. If we terminate a program in which we have invested significant resources, we will not receive any return on our investment and we will have missed the opportunity to have allocated those resources to potentially more productive uses.

We or our current and prospective partners may be subject to product recalls in the future that could harm our brand and reputation and could negatively affect our business.

We or our current and prospective partners may be subject to product recalls, withdrawals or seizures if any of our product candidates, if approved for marketing, fail to meet specifications or are believed to cause injury or illness or if we are alleged to have violated governmental regulations including those related to the manufacture, labeling, promotion, sale or distribution. Any recall, withdrawal or seizure in the future could materially and adversely affect consumer confidence in our brands and lead to decreased demand for our approved products. In addition, a recall, withdrawal or seizure of any of our approved products would require significant management attention, would likely result in substantial and unexpected expenditures and would harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

If we or any partners with which we may collaborate are unable to achieve and maintain coverage and adequate levels of reimbursement for any of our product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, or any future products we may seek to commercialize, their commercial success may be severely hindered.

For any of our product candidates that become available only by prescription, successful sales by us or by any partners with which we may collaborate depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Patients who are prescribed medicine for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. The availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. If any of our product candidates do not demonstrate attractive efficacy profiles, they may not qualify for coverage and reimbursement. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

In addition, the market for our product candidates will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or another alternative is available.

Further, third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, although private third-party payors tend to follow Medicare, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

Further, we believe that future coverage and reimbursement will likely be subject to increased restrictions both in the United States and in international markets. Third-party coverage and reimbursement for any of our product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval may not be available or adequate in either the United States or international markets, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Recently enacted and future healthcare legislative or regulatory reform measures, including government restrictions on pricing and reimbursement, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval, and could have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

In the United States, under the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, Medicare Part D provides coverage to the elderly and disabled for outpatient prescription drugs by approving and subsidizing prescription drug plans offered by private insurers. The MMA also authorizes Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to use formularies where they can limit the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. The Part D plans use their formulary leverage to negotiate rebates and other price concessions from drug manufacturers. Also under the MMA, Medicare Part B provides coverage to the elderly and disabled for physician-administered drugs on the basis of the drug’s average sales price, a price that is calculated according to regulatory requirements and that the manufacturer reports to Medicare quarterly. Both Congress and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the agency that administers the Medicare program, from time to time consider legislation, regulations, or other initiatives to reduce drug costs under Medicare Parts B and D. For example, under the ACA, drug manufacturers are required to provide a 50% discount on prescriptions for branded drugs filled while the beneficiary is in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole.” There have been legislative proposals to repeal the “non-interference” provision of the MMA to allow CMS to leverage the Medicare market share to negotiate larger Part D rebates. Further cost reduction efforts could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for our drug candidates and could seriously harm our business. Private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and any reduction in reimbursement under the Medicare program may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “ACA”) is intended to broaden access to health insurance and reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending. Further, the Affordable Care Act imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. It also increased the amount of the rebates drug manufacturers must pay to state Medicaid programs, required that Medicaid rebates be paid on managed Medicaid utilization, and increased the additional rebate on “line extensions” (such as extended-release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products. The law also contains substantial provisions affecting fraud and abuse compliance and transparency, which may require us to modify our business practices with healthcare practitioners and incur substantial costs to ensure compliance.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

For example, in the United States, the ACA, substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly affects the pharmaceutical industry. Many provisions of the ACA impact the biopharmaceutical industry, including that in order for a biopharmaceutical product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicare Part B and Medicaid programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the drug pricing program under the Public Health Services Act (the “PHS”). Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges and amendments to certain aspects of the ACA. There is continued uncertainty about the implementation of the ACA, including the potential for further amendments to the ACA and legal challenges to or efforts to repeal the ACA.

In addition, other legislative changes that affect the pharmaceutical industry have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 included, among other things, a provision that authorizes CMS to negotiate a “maximum fair price” for a limited number of high-cost, single-source drugs every year, and another provision that requires drug companies to pay rebates to Medicare if prices rise faster than inflation. In addition, various states have adopted or are considering adopting laws that require pharmaceutical companies to provide notice prior to raising prices and to justify price increases. We expect that additional healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, and in turn could significantly reduce the projected value of certain development projects and reduce our profitability.

There has also been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the now-departed Trump administration proposed numerous prescription drug cost control measures. Similarly, the new Biden administration has made lowering prescription drug prices one of its priorities. The Biden administration has not yet proposed any specific plans, but we expect that these will be forthcoming in the near term. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Other examples of proposed changes include, but are not limited to, expanding post-approval requirements, changing the Orphan Drug Act, and restricting sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether government regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes would be on the marketing approvals, sales, pricing, or reimbursement of our drug candidates or products, if any, may be. We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our drugs.

In addition, FDA regulations and guidance may be revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or guidance, or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations or guidance, may impose additional costs or lengthen FDA review times for any of our current or future product candidates. We cannot determine how changes in regulations, statutes, policies, or interpretations when and if issued, enacted or adopted, may affect our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require:

Such changes would likely require substantial time and impose significant costs, or could reduce the potential commercial value of our product candidates. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for any other products would harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may also be subject to healthcare laws, regulation and enforcement and our failure to comply with those laws could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

Certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We are subject to regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we or our partners conduct our business. The laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provided that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

Achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly. In addition, any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws or regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third-party suppliers and manufacturers must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.