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 March 31, 2025

☐ 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: 001-35776

Grace Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


State of Delaware		98-1359336
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

103 Carnegie Center Suite 300

Princeton, New Jersey 08540

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

609-322-1602

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

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


Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share	GRCE	Nasdaq Stock Market

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

Indicate by check mark 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 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether 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 (§232.405 of this chapter) 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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Emerging growth company	☐

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. Yes ☐ No ☒

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 whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting shares of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing sale price of the registrant’s common stock on September 30, 2024, the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, as reported on the Nasdaq Stock Market, was $24,040,390.

The number of outstanding shares of common stock of the registrant, par value $0.0001 per share, as of June 19, 2025, was 13,828,562.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2025 annual meeting of stockholders, which the registrant intends to file pursuant to Regulation 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year to which this Annual Report on Form 10-K relates, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

GRACE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Formerly ACASTI PHARMA INC.)

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2025

Table of Contents


PART I
	Item 1.	Business	7
	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	32
	Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	52
	Item 2.	Properties	53
	Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	53
	Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	53
PART II
	Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	54
	Item 6.	[Reserved]	54
	Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation	55
	Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk	63
	Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	63
	Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	63
	Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	63
	Item 9B.	Other Information	63
	Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	63
PART III
	Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	64
	Item 11.	Executive Compensation	64
	Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	64
	Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	64
	Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	64
PART IV
	Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	65
	Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	67
SIGNATURES

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains information that may be forward-looking statements within the meaning of U.S. federal securities laws and forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws, both of which we refer to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” or other similar expressions concerning matters that are not statements about the present or historical facts. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, information or statements about:

•

our ability to build a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused in rare and orphan diseases and, on developing and commercializing products that improve clinical outcomes using our novel drug delivery technologies;

•

our ability to apply new proprietary formulations to existing pharmaceutical compounds to achieve enhanced efficacy, faster onset of action, reduced side effects, and more convenient drug delivery that can result in increased patient compliance;

•

the potential for our drug candidates to receive orphan drug designation and exclusivity from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or regulatory approval under the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”);

•

the future prospects of our GTx-104 drug candidate, including but not limited to GTx-104’s potential to be administered to improve the management of hypotension in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (“aSAH”); the ability of GTx-104 to achieve a pharmacokinetic (“PK”) and safety profile similar to the oral form of nimodipine; GTx-104’s potential to provide improved bioavailability; GTx-104’s potential to achieve pharmacoeconomic benefit over the oral form of nimodipine; our ability to ultimately file a new drug application (“NDA”) for GTx-104 under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA; the acceptance of the NDA by the FDA; and the timing and ability to receive FDA approval for marketing GTx-104;

•

our plan to prioritize the development of GTx-104;

•

our plan to maximize the value of our de-prioritized drug candidates, GTx-102 and GTx-101, including through potential development, licensing, or sale of those drug candidates;

•

the future prospects of our GTx-102 drug candidate, including but not limited to GTx-102’s potential to provide clinical benefits to decrease symptoms associated with Ataxia Telangiectasia; GTx-102’s potential ease of drug administration; the timing and outcomes of a Phase 3 efficacy and safety study for GTx-102; the timing of an NDA filing for GTx-102 under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA; and the timing and ability to receive FDA approval for marketing GTx-102;

•

the future prospects of our GTx-101 drug candidate, including but not limited to GTx-101’s potential to be administered to postherpetic neuralgia (“PHN”) patients to treat the severe nerve pain associated with the disease; assumptions about the biphasic delivery mechanism of GTx-101, including its potential for rapid onset and continuous pain relief for up to eight hours; and the timing and outcomes of single ascending dose/multiple ascending dose and PK bridging studies, and a Phase 2 and Phase 3 efficacy and safety study; the timing of an NDA filing for GTx-101 under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA; and the timing and ability to receive FDA approval for marketing GTx-101;

•

the quality of our clinical data, the cost and size of our development programs, expectations and forecasts related to our target markets and the size of our target markets; the cost and size of our commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs in the United States, European Union, and the rest of the world; and our expected use of a range of third-party contract research organizations (“CROs”) and contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) at multiple locations;

•

expectations and forecasts related to our intellectual property portfolio, including but not limited to the probability of receiving orphan drug exclusivity from the FDA for our leading pipeline drug candidates; our patent portfolio strategy; and outcomes of our patent filings and extent of patent protection;

•

our intellectual property position and duration of our patent rights;

•

our strategy, future operations, prospects and the plans of our management with a goal to enhance shareholder value;

•

our need for additional financing, and our estimates regarding our operating runway and timing for future financing and capital requirements;

•

our expectations regarding our financial performance, including our costs and expenses, liquidity, and capital resources;

•

our projected capital requirements to fund our anticipated expenses; and

•

our ability to commercialize GTx-104 in the United States or establish strategic partnerships or commercial collaborations or obtain non-dilutive funding.

Although the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are based upon what we believe are reasonable assumptions, you should not place undue reliance on those forward-looking statements since actual results may vary materially from them.

In addition, the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, that could cause our actual results and developments to differ materially from those that are disclosed in or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, among others:

•

we are heavily dependent on the success of our lead drug candidate, GTx-104;

•

clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development;

•

we are subject to uncertainty relating to healthcare reform measures and reimbursement policies that, if not favorable to our drug candidates, could hinder or prevent our drug candidates’ commercial success;

•

if we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our drug products, if approved, we may be unable to generate any revenue;

•

if we are unable to differentiate our drug products from branded reference drugs or existing generic therapies for similar treatments, or if the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities approve products that compete with any of our drug products, our ability to successfully commercialize our drug products would be adversely affected;

•

our success depends in part upon our ability to protect our intellectual property for our drug candidates;

•

intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage;

•

we do not have internal manufacturing capabilities, and if we fail to develop and maintain supply relationships with various third-party manufacturers, or if such third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients or drug products, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices or fail to maintain or achieve satisfactory regulatory compliance, we may be unable to develop or commercialize our drug candidates;

•

our contract manufacturers may encounter difficulties involving, among other things, production yields, regulatory compliance, quality control and quality assurance, as well as shortages of qualified personnel. Approval of our drug candidates could be delayed, limited, or denied if the FDA does not approve and maintain the approval of our contract manufacturers’ processes or facilities;

•

the design, development, manufacture, supply, and distribution of our drug candidates are highly regulated and technically complex; and

•

the other risks and uncertainties identified in Item 1A. Risk Factors and Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

All of the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are qualified by this cautionary statement. There can be no guarantee that the results or developments that we anticipate will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the consequences or effects on our business, financial condition, or results of operations that we anticipate. As a result, you should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not undertake to update or amend any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. All forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We express all amounts in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in U.S. dollars, except where otherwise indicated. References to “$” and “U.S.$” are to U.S. dollars and references to “C$” or “CAD$” are to Canadian dollars.

Except as otherwise indicated, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Grace,” “Grace Therapeutics,” “Acasti,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Grace Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as Acasti Pharma, Inc.) and its consolidated subsidiary.

Risk Factor Summary

The risk factors summarized below could materially harm our business, operating results and/or financial condition, impair our future prospects and/or cause the price of shares of our common stock to decline. For more information, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Form 10-K. Material risks that may affect our business, operating results and financial condition include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

Risks Related to our Business

•

We may not achieve our publicly announced milestones on time, or at all.

•

We are heavily dependent on the success of our lead drug candidate, GTx-104.

•

We may not be able to maximize value from our de-prioritized drug candidates, GTx-102 and GTx-101, through either development, out-licensing or sale.

•

We may not be able to maintain our operations and advance our research and development and commercialization of our GTx-104 lead drug candidate without additional funding.

•

We have no history of commercializing drugs, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

•

Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies caused by the U.S. presidential administration, funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent or delay new products and services from being developed, approved, or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

Risks Related to Development, Testing and Commercialization of Our Products

•

If the FDA does not conclude that our drug candidates satisfy the requirements for the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for approval of any of our drug candidates under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for our drug candidates will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and encounter significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in any case may not be successful.

•

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

•

If a product candidate causes undesirable side effects, then we may be unable to receive regulatory approval or market acceptance for such product candidate.

•

Our drug development strategy relies heavily upon the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which requires us to certify that we do not infringe upon third-party patents covering approved drugs. Such certifications often result in third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, the defense of which will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in any litigation may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts which would harm our business.

•

If the market opportunities for GTx-104 are smaller than we believe they are, our results of operations may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer.

•

We are subject to uncertainty relating to healthcare reform measures and reimbursement policies which, if not favorable to our drug candidates, could hinder or prevent our drug candidates’ commercial success.

•

Recent and future changes in healthcare legislation and regulations may increase the difficulty and cost to obtain marketing approval for a drug candidate, increase the costs to commercialize an approved product, and adversely affect the price set for such product.

•

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our drug candidates and drug products, if approved, among physicians, nurses, pharmacists, patients and the medical community.

•

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our drug candidates, we may be unable to generate any revenue.

•

Even if GTx-104 receives regulatory approval, we will still face regulatory difficulties.

•

Even if our drug candidates receive regulatory approval in the United States, we may never obtain regulatory approval or successfully commercialize our products outside of the United States.

•

If we are unable to differentiate our drug candidates from branded reference drugs or existing generic therapies for similar treatments, or if the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities approve generic products that compete with any of our drug candidates, our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates would be adversely affected.

•

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

•

We could incur substantial costs and disruption to our business and delays in the launch of our drug candidates if our competitors and/or collaborators bring legal actions against us, which could harm our business and operating results.

•

We are subject to numerous complex regulatory requirements and failure to comply with these regulations, or the cost of compliance with these regulations, may harm our business.

•

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

•

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business.

•

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their other clients or former employers to us.

•

Our success depends in part upon our ability to protect our intellectual property for our branded products and drug candidates.

•

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license rights to technology from third parties, or if the license agreements are terminated for other reasons, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

•

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

•

We rely on third parties to conduct our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our drug candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

•

We rely on third parties to manufacture commercial and clinical supplies of our drug candidates, and we intend to rely on third parties to manufacture commercial supplies of any approved drug products. The commercialization of any of our drug products could be stopped, delayed, or made less profitable if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients, or drug products, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices or fail to maintain or achieve satisfactory regulatory compliance.

•

We may not be successful in establishing or maintaining development and commercialization collaborations, and any partner may not devote sufficient resources to the development or commercialization of our drug candidates or may otherwise fail in development or commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect our ability to develop certain of our drug candidates and our financial condition and operating results.

Risks Related to Tax

•

There is a significant risk that we may have been classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes and that such PFIC status may taint our common shares owned by U.S. Holders prior to the Domestication (defined below).

•

We may not be able to use our net operating loss carry forwards to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

•

The IRS may not agree that we should have been treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes prior to the Domestication.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

•

The price of our common stock may be volatile.

•

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or drug candidates.

PART I

Item 1.

Business

Overview

We are focused on developing and commercializing products for rare and orphan diseases that have the potential to improve clinical outcomes by using our novel drug delivery technologies. We seek to apply new proprietary formulations to approved and marketed pharmaceutical compounds to achieve enhanced efficacy, faster onset of action, reduced side effects, more convenient drug delivery and increased patient compliance; all of which could result in improved patient outcomes. The active pharmaceutical ingredients used in the drug candidates under development by us may be already approved in a target indication or could be repurposed for use in new indications.

Our therapeutic pipeline consists of three unique clinical-stage drug candidates supported by an intellectual property portfolio of more than 40 granted and pending patents in various jurisdictions worldwide. These drug candidates aim to improve clinical outcomes in the treatment of rare and orphan diseases by applying proprietary formulation and drug delivery technologies to existing pharmaceutical compounds to achieve improvements over the current standard of care, or to provide treatment for diseases with no currently approved therapies.

The existing well understood efficacy and safety profiles of these marketed compounds provide the opportunity for us to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) for the development of our reformulated versions of these drugs, and therefore may provide a potentially shorter path to regulatory approval. Under Section 505(b)(2), if sufficient support of a product’s safety and efficacy either through previous FDA experience or sufficiently within the existing and accepted scientific literature, can be established, it may eliminate the need to conduct some of the pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that new drug candidates might otherwise require.

We believe rare disorders represent an attractive area for drug development, and there remains an opportunity for us to utilize already approved drugs that have established safety profiles and clinical experience to potentially address significant unmet medical needs. A key advantage of pursuing therapies for rare disorders is the potential to receive orphan drug designation (“ODD”) from the FDA. Our three drug candidates have received ODD status and, provided certain conditions are met at new drug application approval, those candidates, if approved, will be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity (“ODE”), which blocks FDA from approving for seven years any other application for a product that is the same drug for the same orphan indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with ODE. ODD status can also result in tax credits of up to 25% of clinical development costs conducted in the United States upon marketing approval and a waiver of the NDA fees, which we estimate can translate into savings of approximately $4.3 million for our lead drug candidate, GTx-104. Developing drugs for rare diseases can often allow for clinical trials that are more manageably scaled and may require a smaller, more targeted commercial infrastructure.

The specific diseases targeted for drug development by us are well understood, although the patient populations suffering from such diseases may remain poorly served by available therapies or, in some cases, approved therapies do not yet exist. We aim to effectively treat debilitating symptoms that result from these underlying diseases.

Our management team possesses significant experience in drug formulation, drug delivery research and development, clinical and pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, business development, as well as late-stage drug development and commercialization. Importantly, our team is comprised of industry professionals with deep expertise and knowledge, including a world-renowned practicing neurosurgeon-scientist and respected authority in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, as well as product development, chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”), planning, implementation, management, and execution of global Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials for GTx-104, and drug commercialization.

Our Pipeline

•

GTx-104 is a clinical stage, novel, injectable formulation of nimodipine being developed for IV infusion in aSAH patients to address significant unmet medical needs. The unique nanoparticle technology of GTx-104 facilitates aqueous formulation of insoluble nimodipine for a standard peripheral IV infusion. GTx-104 provides a convenient IV delivery of nimodipine in the Intensive Care Unit potentially eliminating the need for nasogastric tube administration in unconscious or dysphagic patients. Intravenous delivery of GTx-104 also has the potential to lower food effects, drug-to-drug interactions, and eliminate potential dosing errors. Further, GTx-104 has the potential to better manage hypotension in aSAH patients. GTx-104 has been administered in over 200 patients and healthy volunteers and was well tolerated with significantly lower inter- and intra-subject pharmacokinetic variability compared to oral nimodipine.

•

GTx-102 is targeted as the first potential therapy for the treatment of ataxia-telangiectasia (“A-T”) in a pediatric population. A-T is caused by mutations in the ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene. Children with A-T experience cerebellar ataxia and other motor dysfunctions, oculomotor apraxia, dysarthria, and dysphagia. A Phase-1 pharmacokinetic study was successfully completed and GTx-102 was well tolerated with no serious events reported.

•

GTx-101 is a topical bio adhesive film-forming bupivacaine spray for Postherpetic Neuralgia (“PHN”), which can be persistent and often causes debilitating pain following infection by the shingles virus. Four single-dose Phase 1 studies to evaluate the PK, safety, dose proportionality and tolerability of GTx-101 have been performed. No serious adverse events were reported and GTx-101 was well tolerated. We believe that GTx-101 could be administered to patients with PHN to treat pain associated with the disease.

GTx-104

About aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH)

aSAH is bleeding over the surface of the brain in the subarachnoid space between the brain and the skull, which contains blood vessels that supply the brain. A primary cause of such bleeding is the rupture of an aneurysm in the brain. aSAH is characterized by high mortality (up to 25% early mortality) and significant potential of neurological decline (approximately 40%). The result is a relatively uncommon type of stroke that accounts for about 5% of all strokes and an estimated 42,500 U.S. hospital treated patients per year. Patients are typically hospitalized for two to four weeks following aSAH, with the most severe cases extending to a month or more. Due to the length of hospital stay and disproportionately high mortality and morbidity, aSAH has significant cost of care impact.

In contrast to more common types of ischemic stroke in elderly individuals, aSAH often occurs at a relatively young age, with approximately half the affected patients younger than 60 years old. Approximately 10% to 15% of aSAH patients die before reaching the hospital, and those who survive the initial hours post hemorrhage are admitted or transferred to tertiary care centers with high risk of complications, including rebleeding and systemic manifestations affecting cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal function.

Unmet Needs with Oral Nimodipine

Nimodipine was granted FDA approval in 1988 and is the only approved drug that has been clinically shown to improve neurological outcomes in aSAH patients. It is only available in the United States as a generic oral capsule and as a branded oral liquid solution called NYMALIZE™, which is manufactured and sold by Arbor Pharmaceuticals (acquired in September 2021 by Azurity Pharmaceuticals). Nimodipine has poor water solubility and high permeability characteristics because of its high lipophilicity. Additionally, orally administered nimodipine has dose-limiting side-effects such as hypotension, poor absorption and low bioavailability resulting from high first-pass metabolism, and a narrow administration window as food effects lower bioavailability significantly. Due to these issues, blood levels of orally administered nimodipine can be highly variable, making it difficult to manage blood pressure in aSAH patients, often leading to frequent dose interruptions. Nimodipine capsules are also difficult to administer, particularly to unconscious patients or those with impaired ability to swallow, while the oral liquid solution has tolerability challenges due to solubility limitations of nimodipine.

GTx-104 Technology

Our lead drug candidate, GTx-104, is a novel injectable formulation of nimodipine for the treatment of a rare disease, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. This formulation offers several potential advantages over oral administration of nimodipine that is the current Standard of Care (SoC) in the United States.

•

Novel injectable formulation of nimodipine

•

Overcomes solubility limitations of nimodipine

•

A patented formulation that uses non-ionic surfactant micelles as the drug carrier to solubilize nimodipine

•

Simple to prepare in a pharmacy and stable at room temperature

Value Proposition

GTx-104 provides a convenient IV delivery of nimodipine in the Intensive Care Unit potentially eliminating the need for nasogastric tube administration in unconscious or dysphagic patients. Intravenous delivery of GTx-104 also has the potential to lower food effects, drug-to-drug interactions, and eliminate potential dosing errors. Further, GTx-104 has the potential to better manage hypotension in aSAH patients. GTx-104 has been administered in over 200 patients and healthy volunteers and was well tolerated with significantly lower inter- and intra-subject pharmacokinetic variability compared to oral nimodipine.

GTx-104 is designed to address significant unmet medical needs for patients with aSAH. We believe that with this novel nimodipine IV formulation may offer a potential value to physicians, hospitals, and their patients.

GTx-104 Market Opportunity

Approximately 42,500 patients in the United States are affected by aSAH per year. Company sponsored third party market research including claims analysis suggests that incidence may be as high as approximately 70,000. Outside of the United States, annual cases of aSAH are estimated at approximately 60,000 in the European Union, and approximately 150,000 in China.

The unmet needs in the treatment of aSAH and the potential of GTx-104 to address the limitations of the current standard of care were the subject of a Key Opinion Leader event we hosted in November 2024. In an independent market research survey we conducted of hospital administrators and critical and neuro intensive care physicians at institutions with Comprehensive or Advanced Stroke Center certification who are involved in purchasing decisions for their institutions/units, respondents reported 80% likelihood of adopting an IV formulation of nimodipine, assuming 100% bioavailability, better safety, no food effects, effective hypotension management, potential hospital value and patient value.

Clinical Data

Pivotal Phase 3 STRIVE-ON Randomized Safety Trial

The STRIVE-ON trial was a prospective, randomized open-label trial of GTx-104 compared with oral nimodipine in patients hospitalized with aSAH. 50 patients were administered GTx-104 and 52 patients received oral nimodipine. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with at least one episode of clinically significant hypotension reasonably considered to be caused by the drug, and additional endpoints included safety, clinical, and pharmacoeconomic outcomes. Each patient was evaluated for up to 90 days inclusive of the 21-day treatment period. There was a higher proportion of the most severe cases of aSAH (Hunt & Hess Grade V) with the worst prognosis in the GTx-104 arm (8%) compared to the oral nimodipine arm (2%).

On September 25, 2024, we announced the completion of enrollment in our Phase 3 STRIVE-ON trial for GTx-104. On February 10, 2025, we announced the trial met its primary endpoint and provided evidence of clinical benefit for GTx-104 compared to orally administered nimodipine. Patients receiving GTx-104 were observed to have a 19% reduction in at least one incidence of clinically significant hypotension compared to oral nimodipine (28% versus 35%). Other measures also favored or were comparable to GTx-104, including:

•

54% of patients who received GTx-104 had a relative dose intensity of 95% or higher of the prescribed dose compared to only 8% on oral nimodipine.

•

29% relative increase in the number of patients receiving GTx-104 compared to oral nimodipine with favorable outcomes at 90 days follow up on the modified Rankin scale. Quality of life as measured by EQ-5D-3L also favored patients receiving GTx-104 versus oral nimodipine.

•

Fewer intensive care unit (ICU) readmissions, ICU days, and ventilator days for patients receiving GTx-104 versus oral nimodipine.

•

Adverse events were comparable between the two arms and no new safety issues were identified with patients receiving GTx-104. All deaths in both arms of the trial were due to severity of the patient’s underlying disease. There were eight deaths on the GTx-104 arm compared to four deaths on the oral nimodipine arm. The survival status of one patient on the oral nimodipine arm was unknown. No deaths were determined to be related to GTx-104 or oral nimodipine.

Furthermore, pharmacoeconomic measures favored the use of GTx-104 for patients with aSAH.

We believe these data validate the GTx-104 value proposition and we plan to submit an NDA to the FDA in the first half of calendar year 2025. If approved, GTx-104 has the potential to address significant challenges with oral nimodipine administration and may transform the standard of care for patients with aSAH.

GTx-104 Phase 1 PK Trial

In September 2021, we initiated our pivotal pharmacokinetic (“PK”) bridging trial to evaluate the relative bioavailability of GTx-104 compared to currently marketed oral nimodipine capsules in approximately 50 healthy subjects. This PK trial established the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for GTx-104.

Final results from this pivotal PK trial were reported in May 2022, and showed that the bioavailability of GTx-104 compared favorably with the oral formulation of nimodipine in all subjects, and no serious adverse events were observed for GTx-104.

All endpoints indicated that statistically there was no difference in exposures between GTx-104 and oral nimodipine over the defined time periods for both maximum exposure and total exposure. Plasma concentrations obtained following IV administration showed significantly less variability between subjects as compared to oral administration of capsules because IV administration is not as sensitive to some of the physiological processes that affect oral administration, such as taking the drug with and without meals, variable gastrointestinal transit time, variable drug uptake from the gastrointestinal tract into the systemic circulation, and variable hepatic blood flow and hepatic first pass metabolism. Previous studies have shown these processes significantly affect the oral bioavailability of nimodipine, and therefore cause oral administration to be prone to larger inter- and intra-subject variability.

The bioavailability of oral nimodipine capsules observed was only approximately 7% compared to 100% for GTx-104. Consequently, about one-twelfth the amount of nimodipine is delivered with GTx-104 to achieve comparable PKs as with the oral capsules. This data is presented in the chart below.

Regulatory

In April 2025, we announced details of a Type C written meeting response with the FDA. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain feedback on the completed Phase 3 STRIVE-ON safety trial of GTx-104 and our planned NDA submission, including clinical, non-clinical, and CMC requirements.

Based on feedback from the FDA, we believe that the data and regulatory packages as currently structured will be sufficient for submission of an NDA. We anticipate filing the NDA for GTx-104 in the second quarter of 2025. Acceptance of the NDA will be subject to the FDA’s review of the complete filing.

GTx-102

GTx-102 is a novel, concentrated oral-mucosal spray of betamethasone intended to improve neurological symptoms of A-T for which there are currently no FDA-approved therapies. GTx-102 is a stable, concentrated oral spray formulation comprised of the gluco-corticosteroid betamethasone that, together with other excipients, can be sprayed conveniently over the tongue of the A-T patient and is rapidly absorbed.

We have licensed the data from the multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial from Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy, where Dr. Zannolli et. al. studied the effect of oral liquid solution of betamethasone to reduce ataxia symptoms in patients with A-T. This oral liquid solution is not marketed in the United States, and therefore is not available for clinical use. Currently, betamethasone is only available in the United States as an injectable or as a topical cream. This license gives us the right to reference the trial’s data in our NDA filing. On November 12, 2015, we submitted the data from the Zannolli trial to the FDA’s Division of Neurology at a pre-Investigational New Drug (“IND”) meeting and received guidance from the agency on the regulatory requirements to seek approval.

About Ataxia Telangiectasia

A-T is a rare genetic progressive autosomal recessive neurodegenerative disorder that affects children, with the hallmark symptoms of cerebellar ataxia and other motor dysfunction, and dilated blood vessels (telangiectasia) that occur in the sclera of the eyes. A-T is caused by mutations in the ataxia telangiectasia gene, which is responsible for modulating cellular response to stress, including breaks in the double strands of DNA.

Children with A-T begin to experience balance and coordination problems when they begin to walk (toddler age), and ultimately become wheelchair-bound in their second decade of life. In pre-adolescence (between ages 5 and 8), patients experience oculomotor apraxia, dysarthria, and dysphagia. They also often develop compromised immune systems and are at increased risk of developing respiratory tract infections and cancer (typically lymphomas and leukemia).

Unmet Needs

There is no known treatment to slow disease progression, and treatments that are used are strictly aimed at controlling the symptoms (or conditions secondary to the disease. There are no FDA-approved therapeutic options currently available. Patients typically die by age 25 from complications of lung disease or cancer.

Market Opportunity

According to a third-party report we commissioned, A-T affects approximately 4,300 patients per year in the United States and has a potential total addressable market of $150 million, based on the number of treatable patients in the United States.

Clinical Data

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial conducted in Italy, Dr. Zannolli et al. studied the effect of an oral liquid solution of betamethasone on the reduction of ataxia symptoms in 13 children (between ages 2 to 8 years) with A-T. The primary outcome measure was the reduction in ataxia symptoms as assessed by the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (“ICARS”).

In the trial, oral liquid betamethasone reduced the ICARS total score by a median of 13 points in the intent-to-treat population and 16 points in the per-protocol population (the median percent decreases of ataxia symptoms of 28% and 31%, respectively). Adverse events in the trial were minimal, with no compulsory withdrawals and only minor side effects that did not require medical intervention. Clinical trial results in A-T patients administered oral betamethasone indicated that betamethasone significantly reduced ICARS total score relative to placebo (P = 0.01). The median ICARS change score (change in score with betamethasone minus change in score with placebo) was -13 points (95% confidence interval for the difference in medians was -19 to -5.5 points).

Based on the Zannolli data, we believe that our GTx-102 concentrated oral spray has the potential to provide clinical benefits in decreasing A-T symptoms, including assessments of posture and gait disturbance and kinetic, speech and oculomotor functions. In addition, GTx-102 may ease drug administration for patients experiencing A-T given its application of 1-3x/day of 140µL of concentrated betamethasone liquid sprayed onto the tongue using a more convenient metered dose delivery system, as these A-T patients typically have difficulty swallowing.

Pharmacokinetic Data

GTx-102 administered as a concentrated oral spray achieves similar blood levels at only 1/70th the volume of an oral solution of betamethasone. This more convenient mode of administration will be important for A-T patients who have difficulties swallowing large volumes of liquids.

We initiated a PK bridging trial of GTx-102 as compared to the oral liquid solution of betamethasone used in the Zannolli trial and against the injectable form of betamethasone that is approved in the U.S. in the third calendar quarter of 2022. The primary objectives of the PK bridging trial were to evaluate the bioavailability, pharmacokinetics, and safety of GTx-102. In December 2022, we reported that the topline results of this trial met all primary outcome measures.

Next Steps

On February 13, 2025, we announced FDA’s written responses to our GTx-102 End of Phase 1 meeting request where FDA made recommendations on the path toward an NDA. They provided guidance on the design of a single pivotal efficacy and safety trial, including the neurological assessment scale for the primary endpoint, that could, with appropriate confirmatory evidence, support an NDA. We plan to collaborate with our scientific advisory board and FDA (via Type C meeting) on the design of a potential pivotal efficacy and safety trial and will determine the next steps after that time. Further clinical development work will be contingent on additional funding for GTx-102 or the signing of a strategic partnership. It is also possible that we may license or sell our GTx-102 drug candidate.

GTx-101

GTx-101 is a non-narcotic, topical bio-adhesive film-forming bupivacaine spray designed to ease the symptoms of patients suffering with PHN. GTx-101 is administered via a metered-dose of bupivacaine spray and forms a thin bio-adhesive topical film on the surface of the patient’s skin, which enables a touch-free, non-greasy application. It also comes in convenient, portable 30 ml plastic bottles. Unlike oral gabapentin and lidocaine patches which are used for the treatment of PHN, we believe that the biphasic delivery mechanism of GTx-101 has the potential for rapid onset of action and continuous pain relief for up to eight hours. No skin sensitivity was reported in a Phase 1 trial.

About Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN)

PHN is neuropathic pain due to damage caused by the varicella zoster virus (“VZV”). Infection with VZV causes two distinct clinical conditions. Primary VZV infection causes varicella (i.e., chickenpox), a contagious rash illness that typically occurs among young children. Secondary VZV can reactivate clinically, decades after initial infection, to cause herpes zoster (“HZ”), otherwise known as shingles. Acute HZ arises when dormant virus particles, persisting within an affected sensory ganglion from the earlier, primary infection with VZV become reactivated when cellular immunity to varicella decreases. Viral particles replicate and may spread to the dorsal root, into the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, and through peripheral sensory nerve fibers down to the level of the skin. Viral particles also may circulate in the blood. This reactivation is accompanied by inflammation of the skin, immune response, hemorrhage, and destruction of peripheral and central neurons and their fibers. Following such neural degeneration, distinct types of pathophysiological mechanisms involving both the central and peripheral nervous systems may give rise to the severe nerve pain associated with PHN. While the rash associated with HZ typically heals within two to four weeks, the pain may persist for months or even years, and this PHN manifestation is the most common and debilitating complication of HZ. There is currently no consensus definition for PHN, but it has been suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that PHN is best defined as pain lasting at least three months after resolution of the rash.

Unmet Need

PHN is associated with significant loss of function and reduced quality of life, particularly in the elderly. It has a detrimental effect on all aspects of a patient’s quality of life. The nature of PHN pain varies from mild to severe, constant, intermittent, or triggered by trivial stimuli. Approximately half of patients with PHN describe their pain as “horrible” or “excruciating,” ranging in duration from a few minutes to constant on a daily or almost daily basis. The pain can disrupt sleep, mood, work, and activities of daily living, adversely impacting the quality of life and leading to social withdrawal and depression. PHN is the foremost cause of intractable, debilitating pain in the elderly, and has been cited as the leading cause of suicide in chronic pain patients over the age of 70.

Current treatment of PHN most often consists of oral gabapentin (first line) and prescription lidocaine patches or antidepressants (second line), and refractory cases may be prescribed opioids to address persistent pain. Gabapentin and opioid abuse have continued to proliferate, and lidocaine patches are suboptimal for many reasons. An independent third-party market research firm we commissioned interviewed more than 250 physicians who regularly treat PHN patients and found that approximately 40% of patients using lidocaine patches experience insufficient pain relief. Lidocaine patches are difficult to use, fall off, and look unsightly with possible skin sensitivity and irritation. Additionally, lidocaine patches can only be used for 12 hours and then need to be removed for 12 hours before being reapplied. Prescription lidocaine patches are only approved for PHN, and the market is currently made up of both branded and generic offerings.

Market Potential

It is estimated that PHN affects approximately 120,000 patients per year in the United States. According to a third-party report, the total addressable market for GTx-101 could be as large as $2.5 billion, consisting of approximately $200 million for PHN pain and $2.3 billion for non-PHN pain indications.

Clinical Data

To date, we have conducted four Phase I trials in healthy volunteers to assess the PK, safety, and tolerability of GTx-101 and to determine the plasma levels of bupivacaine hydrogen chloride administered as a single dose in various concentrations between 30 mg (three sprays) and 2100 mg (twenty sprays).

These trials confirmed that GTx-101 is well absorbed through the skin, as demonstrated in the graph below, while very little is absorbed systemically.

In all four trials, the administration of GTx-101 to healthy volunteers was safe and well tolerated. In addition, no evidence of skin irritation was observed at the application site following the spray administrations. The data below is from two separate trials superimposed on each other – one trial of GTx-101 and one trial of the Lidoderm patch.

Regulatory

The data from the single dose Phase 1 clinical trial for GTx-101 was submitted to the FDA’s Division of Anesthesiology and feedback was received at a pre-IND meeting that informed the design of pre-clinical toxicology studies and a clinical and regulatory pathway to approval under section 505(b)(2). We completed a minipig skin sensitivity study in the second calendar quarter of 2022, and we initiated a single dose PK trial in healthy human volunteers in July 2022. Topline results from this single dose PK trial were reported in December 2022, and the results met all primary outcome measures.

Next Steps

The further development of GTx-101 has been deprioritized in favor of our focus on development of GTx-104. Pending additional funding for GTx-101 or the signing of a strategic partnership, we plan to follow this successful PK trial with the next step of the clinical development plan including a multiple ascending dose trial. Results from these non-clinical studies and clinical trials are required before the initiation of our Phase 2 program in PHN patients. It is also possible that we may license or sell our GTx-101 drug candidate.

Commercialization Strategy

We have worldwide commercialization rights for all our pipeline drug candidates and plan to maximize the value of each of our drug candidates over time. Currently, we have prioritized the development of GTx-104 over that of GTx-102 and GTx-101. If we receive regulatory approval for GTx-104 in the U.S., we plan to commercialize GTx-104 with a highly experienced and targeted hospital-based sales force. We may further seek commercial partnerships to fully exploit the market potential of GTx-104 in territories outside the U.S. It is possible that we out-license or sell GTx-102 and/or GTx-101 for the U.S. and/or global markets.

Manufacturing and Supply

We currently do not own any manufacturing facilities. The manufacture of our pipeline of drug candidates is highly reliant on complex techniques and personnel aseptic techniques, which present significant challenges and require specialized expertise. Further, these processes undergo a high level of scrutiny by regulatory agencies. Consequently, we utilize a network of third-party CMOs for manufacturing our drug candidates. All CMOs are monitored and evaluated by us to assess compliance with regulatory requirements.

We work with independent consultants to perform periodic quality audits of our manufacturers to review the manufacturing process for our drug candidates and to provide input on quality issues. All lots of the drug substance and drug product used in clinical supply are manufactured under current good manufacturing practices. We plan to continue to rely upon CMOs to manufacture clinical and commercial quantities if a product is approved. We have development agreements in place with these CMOs and we have personnel with pharmaceutical development and manufacturing experience who are responsible for the relationships with our CMOs.

Intellectual Property Portfolio

We have a multi-layered intellectual property protection strategy, which we believe will create barriers to entry and solidify our position in the market. All of our clinical pipeline drug candidates have received orphan status designation from the FDA, which could result in 7 years of marketing exclusivity in the United States. Orphan status in Europe could result in 10 years of final marketing exclusivity. Such marketing exclusivity is dependent on the candidates receiving final marketing authorizations from the applicable government agencies, and the conditions for receiving such marketing exclusivity. In addition, we protect our drug candidates through a well-defined patent filing strategy. Our patent estate includes more than 40 granted and pending patents in various global jurisdictions, including 8 U.S. issued patents and 4 filed U.S. patent applications. We believe that our intellectual property portfolio, consisting primarily of composition and method-of-use patents, will protect the market value of our products by extending exclusivity beyond what is granted through the orphan designation. We intend to continue to build our patent portfolio by filing for patent protection on new developments with respect to our product candidates. We expect that these patents will, if and when issued, allow us to list our own patents in the Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence issued by the FDA, to which potential competitors will be required to certify upon submission of their applications referencing our drug products, if approved.

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to manufacturing know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position. We may also rely on regulatory protections afforded through orphan drug status, data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions, where available.

We are actively seeking U.S. and international patent protection for a variety of technologies and intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that may be used to discover and validate targets and that may be used to identify and develop novel pharmaceutical products. We seek these protections, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements.

Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the date of filing or the date of issuance, and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, utility patents issued for applications filed in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office delay in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the restoration period cannot be longer than 5 years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. The actual protection afforded by a patent may vary on a product-by-product basis from country to country and can depend upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

We have several issued U.S. patents and patent applications as well as patents and patent applications in other jurisdictions. Five patents for GTx-104 have been granted in the United States, one patent for GTx-101 has been granted in each of Japan, Europe, Australia, Canada and India. One patent for GTx-101 has been granted in Europe, China, Mexico, Japan and South Africa. One patent for GTx-102 has been granted in each of the United States, Japan, Australia and Canada. One patent for GTx-201 has been granted in each of the United States and Japan.

Government Regulation

We are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The FDCA and the FDA's implementing regulations set forth, among other things, requirements for the testing, development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval, labeling, storage, record-keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, sale, advertising and promotion of our product candidates. Although we focus on regulation in the U.S., because that is currently our primary focus, we may seek approval for, and market, our products candidates in other countries in the future. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the U.S., although there can be important differences.

Development and Approval

Under the FDCA, FDA approval of an NDA is required before any new drug can be marketed in the U.S. NDAs require extensive studies and submission of a large amount of data by the applicant.

Preclinical Testing. Before testing any compound in human patients in the U.S., a company must generate extensive preclinical data. Preclinical testing generally includes laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological studies in several animal species to assess the toxicity and dosing of the product. Certain animal studies must be performed in compliance with the FDA's Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Act.

IND Application. Human clinical trials in the U.S. cannot commence until an IND application is submitted and becomes effective. A company must submit preclinical testing results to the FDA as part of the IND, and the FDA must evaluate whether there is an adequate basis for testing the drug in initial clinical studies in human volunteers. Unless the FDA raises concerns, the IND becomes effective 30 days following its receipt by the FDA, and the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Once human clinical trials have commenced, the FDA may temporarily or permanently stop a clinical trial by placing it on "clinical hold" at any time because of concerns about the safety of the product being tested, or for other reasons.

Clinical Trials. Clinical trials involve the administration of a drug to healthy human volunteers or to patients, under the supervision of a qualified investigator. The conduct of clinical trials is subject to extensive regulation, including compliance with the FDA's bioresearch monitoring regulations and current Good Clinical Practice (“cGCP”) requirements, which establish standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting the results of, clinical trials, and are intended to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate, and that the rights, safety, and well-being of study participants are protected. Clinical trials must be conducted under protocols that detail the study objectives, parameters for monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria, if any, to be evaluated. Each protocol is reviewed by the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by, and conducted under the auspices of, an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each clinical site. Companies sponsoring the clinical trials, investigators, and IRBs also must comply with, as applicable, regulations and guidelines for obtaining informed consent from the study patients, following the protocol and investigational plan, adequately monitoring the clinical trial, and timely reporting of adverse events. The FDA enforces good clinical practices through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators, and trial sites. Foreign studies conducted under an IND must meet the same requirements that apply to studies being conducted in the U.S. Data from a foreign study not conducted under an IND may be submitted in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with cGCP and the FDA is able to validate the data.

A study sponsor is required to publicly post specified details about certain clinical trials and clinical trial results on government or independent websites (e.g., https://clinicaltrials.gov). Human clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may overlap, be combined, or be subdivided in some cases:

•

Phase 1 clinical trials involve the initial administration of the investigational drug to humans, typically to a small group of healthy human subjects, but occasionally to a group of patients with the targeted disease or disorder. Phase 1 clinical trials generally are intended to evaluate the safety, metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the drug, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.

•

Phase 2 clinical trials generally are controlled studies that involve a relatively small sample of the intended patient population and are designed to develop initial data regarding the product's effectiveness, to determine dose response and the optimal dose range, and to gather additional information relating to safety and potential adverse events.

•

Phase 3 clinical trials are conducted after preliminary evidence of effectiveness has been obtained and are intended to gather the additional information about safety and effectiveness necessary to evaluate the drug's overall risk-benefit profile, and to provide a basis for physician labeling. Generally, Phase 3 clinical development programs consist of expanded, multi-site, large-scale studies of patients with the target disease or disorder to obtain statistical evidence of the efficacy and safety of the drug at the proposed dosing regimen. Phase 3 data often form the core basis on which the FDA evaluates a drug’s safety and effectiveness when considering the product application.

The sponsoring company, the FDA, or the IRB may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Further, success in early-stage clinical trials does not assure success in later-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from clinical activities are not always conclusive and may be subject to alternative interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

NDA Submission and Review. The FDCA provides two pathways for the approval of new drugs through an NDA. An NDA under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA is a comprehensive application to support approval of a product candidate that includes, among other things, data and information to demonstrate that the proposed drug is safe and effective for its proposed uses, that manufacturing methods and controls are adequate to ensure its identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drug, and that proposed labeling is appropriate and contains all necessary information. A 505(b)(1) NDA contains results of the full set of preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the applicant to characterize and evaluate the product candidate including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings.

Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA provides an alternate regulatory pathway to obtain FDA approval that permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely to some extent upon the FDA's findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved product that acts as the reference drug and submit its own product-specific data — which may include data from preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the applicant — to address differences between the product candidate and the reference drug. We are pursuing the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway for GTx-104, with NIMOTOP oral capsules as the reference drug.

The submission of an NDA under either Section 505(b)(1) or Section 505(b)(2) generally requires payment of a substantial user fee to the FDA. However, such fees can be waived by the FDA for orphan drugs such as GTx-104.

When an NDA is submitted, the FDA makes an initial determination as to whether the application is sufficiently complete to be accepted for review. The FDA may refuse to file an application and/or request additional information before acceptance. A refusal to file, which requires resubmission of the NDA with the requested additional information, delays review of the application. Once accepted for filing, FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product's identity, strength, quality, and purity. For some NDAs, the FDA may convene an advisory committee to seek insights and recommendations on issues relevant to approval of the application. Although the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, the agency considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

The FDA may determine that a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a new product outweigh its risks, and the product can therefore be approved. A REMS may include various elements, ranging from a medication guide or patient package insert to limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, depending on what the FDA considers necessary for the safe use of the drug. Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, certain applications for approval must also include an assessment, generally based on clinical study data, of the safety and effectiveness of the subject drug in relevant pediatric populations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are compliant with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Once the FDA accepts an NDA submission which occurs, if at all, within 60 days after submission of the NDA –– under the current goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), the FDA's standard goal for a review of an NDA is ten months from the filing decision, or six months from the filing decision for a priority application. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and in certain circumstances, the PDUFA goal date may be extended, by FDA requests for additional information, studies, or clarification. After reviewing an NDA and the facilities where the product is manufactured, the FDA either issues an approval letter or a complete response letter (“CRL”) outlining the deficiencies in the submission. The CRL may require additional testing or information, including additional preclinical or clinical data. Even if such additional information and data are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA still does not meet the standards for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor.

Obtaining regulatory approval may take several years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources, and depends on several factors, including the severity of the disease in question, the availability of alternative treatments, and the risks and benefits demonstrated in clinical trials. Additionally, as a condition of approval, the FDA may impose restrictions that could affect the commercial success of a drug or impose post-approval commitments and requirements, including the completion within a specified time of additional clinical studies or trials, which often are referred to as "Phase 4" or "post-marketing" studies.

Post-approval modifications to the drug, such as changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require a sponsor to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, to be submitted in a new or supplemental NDA, which would require FDA approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

Once approved, drug products are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA. If ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety or manufacturing problems occur after the product reaches the market, the FDA may at any time withdraw product approval or take actions that would limit or suspend marketing. Additionally, the FDA may require post-marketing studies or clinical trials, changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, or the implementation of other risk management measures, including distribution-related restrictions, if there are new safety information developments.

Good Manufacturing Practices. Companies engaged in manufacturing drug products, or their components must comply with applicable cGMP requirements and product-specific regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Compliance with cGMP includes adhering to requirements relating to organization and training of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, quality control and quality assurance, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, and records and reports. The FDA regulates and inspects equipment, facilities, and processes used in manufacturing pharmaceutical products prior to approval. If, after receiving approval, a company makes a material change in manufacturing equipment, location, or process (all of which are, to some degree, incorporated in the NDA), additional regulatory review and approval may be required. The FDA also conducts regular, periodic visits to re-inspect equipment, facilities, and processes following the initial approval of a product. Failure to comply with applicable cGMP requirements and conditions of product approval may lead the FDA to take enforcement action or seek sanctions, including fines, issuance of warning letters, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, seizure or recall of products, and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party manufacturers, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party manufacturers will consistently comply with cGMP and other applicable FDA regulatory requirements.

Advertising and Promotion. The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, advertising and promotion to healthcare professionals, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for "off-label" uses – that is, uses not approved by the FDA and not described in the product's labeling – because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose restrictions on manufacturers' communications regarding off-label uses. Broadly speaking, a manufacturer may not promote a drug for off-label use, but under certain conditions may engage in non-promotional, balanced, scientific communication regarding off-label use. In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, state and federal fraud and abuse laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the way a company promotes or distributes a drug.

Other Requirements. NDA holders must comply with other regulatory requirements, including submitting annual reports, reporting information about adverse drug experiences, and maintaining certain records.

Additionally, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 into law (P.L. 116-94), which includes bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 or the “CREATES Act.” The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic product developers need samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.”

Hatch-Waxman Act

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”) establishes two abbreviated approval pathways for pharmaceutical products that are in some way follow-on versions of already approved products.

Generic Drugs. A generic version of an approved drug is approved by means of abbreviated NDA (“ANDA”), by which the sponsor demonstrates that the proposed product is the same as the approved, brand-name drug, which is referred to as the reference listed drug (“RLD”). Generally, an ANDA must contain data and information showing that the proposed generic product and RLD (i) have the same active ingredient, in the same strength and dosage form, to be delivered via the same route of administration, (ii) are intended for the same uses, and (iii) are bioequivalent. This is instead of independently demonstrating the proposed product's safety and effectiveness, which are inferred from the fact that the product is the same as the RLD, which the FDA previously found to be safe and effective.

505(b)(2) NDAs. As discussed above, if a product is similar, but not identical, to an already approved product, it may be submitted for approval via an NDA under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Unlike an ANDA, this does not excuse the sponsor from demonstrating the proposed product's safety and effectiveness. Rather, the sponsor is permitted to rely to some degree on information from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference and must submit its own product-specific data of safety and effectiveness to an extent necessary because of the differences between the products. An NDA approved under 505(b)(2) may in turn serve as an RLD for subsequent applications from other sponsors.

RLD Patents. In an NDA, a sponsor must identify patents that claim the drug substance or drug product or a method of using the drug. When the drug is approved, those patents are among the information about the product that is listed in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is referred to as the Orange Book. The sponsor of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application seeking to rely on an approved product as the RLD must make one of several certifications regarding each listed patent. A “Paragraph I” certification is the sponsor’s statement that patent information has not been filed for the RLD. A “Paragraph II” certification is the sponsor’s statement that the RLD’s patents have expired. A "Paragraph III" certification is the sponsor's statement that it will wait for the patent to expire before obtaining approval for its product. A "Paragraph IV" certification is an assertion that the patent does not block approval of the later product, either because the patent is invalid or unenforceable or because the patent, even if valid, is not infringed by the new product.

Regulatory Exclusivities. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides periods of regulatory exclusivity for products that would serve as RLDs for an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application. If a product is a "new chemical entity," or “NCE” — generally meaning that the active moiety has never before been approved in any drug — there is a period of five years from the product's approval during which the FDA may not accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a drug with the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be submitted after four years, however, if the sponsor of the application makes a Paragraph IV certification.

A product that is not an NCE (i.e., the active moiety has been previously approved) may qualify for a three-year period of exclusivity if the NDA, including a 505(b)(2) application contains new clinical data, (other than bioavailability studies) derived from studies conducted by or for the sponsor, that were necessary for approval. In that instance, the exclusivity period does not preclude filing or review of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application; rather, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until three years after approval of the RLD. Additionally, the exclusivity applies only to the conditions of approval that require submission of the clinical data.

Once the FDA accepts for filing an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application containing a Paragraph IV certification, the applicant must within 20 days provide notice to the RLD or listed drug NDA holder and patent owner that the application has been submitted and provide the factual and legal basis for the applicant's assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If the NDA holder or patent owner files suit against the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving the Paragraph IV notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a period of 30 months or the resolution of the underlying suit, whichever is earlier. If the RLD has NCE exclusivity and the notice is given and suit filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the regulatory stay extends until 7.5 years after the RLD approval. The FDA may approve the proposed product before the expiration of the regulatory stay if a court finds the patent invalid or not infringed or if the court shortens the period because the parties have failed to cooperate in expediting the litigation.

If the RLD has NCE exclusivity and the notice is given and suit filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the regulatory stay extends until 7.5 years after the RLD approval. The FDA may approve the proposed product before the expiration of the regulatory stay if a court finds the patent invalid or not infringed or if the court shortens the period because the parties have failed to cooperate in expediting the litigation.

Patent Term Restoration. A portion of the patent term lost during product development and FDA review of an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) application, may be restored if approval of the application is the first permitted commercial marketing of a drug product containing an active ingredient. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of the IND or the date of patent grant (whichever is later) and the date of submission of the NDA, plus the time between the date of submission of the NDA and the date of FDA approval of the product. The maximum period of restoration is five years, and the patent cannot be extended to more than 14 years from the date of FDA approval of the product. Only one patent claiming each approved product is eligible for restoration and the patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for patent term restoration.

Other Exclusivities

Pediatric Exclusivity. Section 505A of the FDCA provides for a six-month extension of exclusivity or patent protection if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly responds to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data does not need to show that the product is effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA's written request, additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever existing statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection that cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. When any product is approved, we will evaluate seeking pediatric exclusivity as appropriate.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity. The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which is one that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or more than 200,000 individuals, but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the product and making it available in the U.S. for the disease or condition will be recovered from U.S. sales of the product. If a sponsor demonstrates that a drug product qualifies for ODD, the FDA grants ODD to the product for that use. The benefits of ODD include research and development tax credits and exemption from user fees. A drug that is approved for the orphan drug designated indication generally is granted seven years of orphan drug exclusivity. During that period, the FDA generally may not approve any other application for the same drug for the same indication, although there are exceptions, most notably when the later product is shown to be clinically superior to the product with exclusivity. Clinical superiority can be established by way of greater efficacy, greater safety, or making a major contribution to patient care. The FDA can revoke a product’s orphan drug exclusivity under certain circumstances, including when the product sponsor is unable to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the product to meet patient needs. 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.

All our clinical-stage product candidates – GTx-104, GTx-102, and GTx-101 – have an ODD.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended (the "Affordable Care Act"), is a sweeping measure intended to expand healthcare coverage within the U.S., primarily through the imposition of health insurance mandates on employers and individuals and expansion of the Medicaid program. This law substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. Changes that may affect our business include those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, benefits for patients within a coverage gap in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program (commonly known as the "donut hole"), ”), which was sunset by the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) effective January 1, 2025 and replaced with a new manufacturer discount program), rules regarding prescription drug benefits under the health insurance exchanges, changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, expansion of the Public Health Service Act's 340B drug pricing program (340B Program), fraud and abuse, and enforcement. These changes impact existing government healthcare programs and have resulted in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives.

Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act have been subject to judicial challenges, as well as efforts to modify them or to alter their interpretation and implementation. For example, in 2017, the U.S. government signed into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.”

It is unclear how efforts to modify or invalidate the Affordable Care Act or its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, will affect the Affordable Care Act or our business.

Other legislative changes relating to reimbursement have been adopted in the U.S. since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals for spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reductions. In concert with subsequent legislation, this has resulted in aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers. Under current legislation, after a brief pause and reduction to 1% due to COVID-19, sequestration is currently set at 2% through the first 7 months of 2032. As long as these cuts remain in effect, they could adversely impact payment for any products we may commercialize in the future.

Further, the IRA, among other things, established a Medicare Part B and Part D inflation rebate scheme, under which, generally, manufacturers will owe rebates if the average sales price of certain Part B drugs or annual average manufacturer price of certain covered Part D drugs increases faster than the pace of inflation. The IRA also creates a drug price negotiation program under which the prices for certain Medicare units of certain high Medicare spend drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition will be capped by reference to, among other things, a specified non-federal average manufacturer price, starting in 2026. The IRA further makes several changes to the Medicare Part D benefit, including a limit on annual out-of-pocket costs, and replacement of the coverage gap discount program with a new manufacturer discount program beginning in 2025.

Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes, or guidance could be adopted, which may impact the marketing approvals and reimbursement for our product candidates. For example, there has been increasing legislative, regulatory, and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices, and there has been recent interest in incorporating so-called Most Favored Nation pricing into the U.S. healthcare system, under which prices for drugs in the United States could be tied to foreign reference prices through a mechanism that is not yet defined. There have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation and regulatory initiatives designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, evaluate the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government healthcare program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. If healthcare policies or reforms intended to curb healthcare costs are adopted or if we experience negative publicity with respect to pricing of our products, if approved, or the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs generally, the prices that we charge for any approved products may be limited, our commercial opportunity may be limited and/or our revenues from sales of our products may be negatively impacted.

Healthcare Privacy Laws

We may be subject to laws and regulations covering data privacy and the protection of health-related and other personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues which may affect our business. Numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state security breach notification laws, state health information and/or privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws and consumer privacy laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of personal information. Such laws and regulations include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their implementing regulations (collectively, “HIPAA”), Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”), and the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CCPA”). Other jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislation and/or regulations similar to the CCPA, such as consumer privacy laws that went into effect in 2023 in Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut. Health-specific consumer privacy laws were also passed in multiple states, including Washington and Nevada. Many of these laws differ from each other in significant ways and have different effects. Many of the state laws enable a state attorney general or other regulator to bring actions and provide private rights of action to consumers as enforcement mechanisms. There is also heightened sensitivity around certain types of health data, which may be subject to additional protection.

Outside the United States, our clinical trial programs and other processing activities implicate international data protection laws, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the “GDPR”). The GDPR has increased our responsibility and liability in relation to the processing of personal data of individuals located in the EU. The GDPR, together with the national legislation of the EU member states governing the processing of personal data, impose strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze, and transfer personal data, including health data and samples from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. For example, these obligations and restrictions may require obtaining explicit consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relate, providing transparency notices to individuals, sharing personal data with third parties, transferring personal data out of the EU, reporting personal data breaches with data protection authorities and affected individuals, and ensuring the security and confidentiality of personal data. Violations of EU data protection laws may result in significant financial penalties (including possible fines of up to 4% of global annual turnover for the preceding financial year or €20 million (whichever is higher)). The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with data protection authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. EU data protection laws also require us to implement appropriate transfer mechanisms in order to lawfully transfer personal from the EU to countries or organizations outside the EU.

Moreover, as a result of the broad scale release and availability of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) technologies such as generative AI, there is a global trend towards more regulation (e.g., the EU AI Act and AI laws passed in U.S. states) to ensure the ethical use, privacy, and security of AI and the data that it processes. Compliance with such laws will likely be an increasing and substantial cost in the future.

Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us (including the imposition of significant penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity that could negatively affect our business.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any pharmaceutical product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any newly approved product. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a payor-by-payor basis. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. As a result, the coverage determination process can require manufacturers to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of a product to each payor separately, and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any products, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costly studies required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Even if we conduct pharmacoeconomic studies, our products, if approved, may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective by payors. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not guarantee that an adequate reimbursement rate will be set, including as commercial payors may establish different rates for different health care providers.

In addition, third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for pharmaceutical products and services. The U.S. government and state legislatures have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical products, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical drug candidates. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit or delay sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

Government Price Reporting

A manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program is required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for its covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program, as a condition of having federal funds available for that manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data the manufacturer reports on a monthly and quarterly basis to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the federal agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug, which best price, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any wholesaler, retailer, provider, health maintenance organization, nonprofit entity, or governmental entity in the U.S. in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts, and other price concessions. Where the average manufacturer price of a drug increases faster than the pace of inflation, the drug may be subject to an additional rebate paid by its manufacturer in the amount that the average manufacturer price has exceeded the pace of inflation. In September 2024, CMS further modified the regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which could increase manufacturer costs and the complexity of compliance, impact rebate liabilities, and be time-consuming to implement.

Federal law requires that each manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program also participate in the 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B "ceiling price" for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients, certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and, in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate amount also could affect a manufacturer’s 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact results of operations.

HRSA issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that are found to have knowingly and intentionally overcharged covered entities, which became effective on January 1, 2019. It is unclear how the government will apply its enforcement authority under the regulation. Manufacturers also are required to report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA then publishes them to covered entities. Moreover, under a final regulation effective January 13, 2021, HRSA newly established an administrative dispute resolution (“ADR”), process for claims by covered entities that a manufacturer has engaged in overcharging, and by manufacturers that a covered entity violated the prohibitions against diversion or duplicate discounts. Such claims are to be resolved through an ADR panel of government officials rendering a decision that could be appealed in federal court. HRSA issued a final rule, effective June 2024, that modified aspects of the ADR process, which could impact the procedures that are used to determine whether a manufacturer owes additional 340B discounts. An ADR proceeding could subject a manufacturer to onerous procedural requirements and result in additional liability.

Manufacturers are required to report the average sales price for certain Medicare Part B-covered products under the Medicare program. Manufacturers calculate the average sales price based on a statutorily defined formula as well as regulations and interpretations of the statute by CMS. CMS may use these submissions to determine payment rates for drugs under Medicare Part B. Since 2023, manufacturers must pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologics, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages, for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of ten percent of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. Manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount. In addition, as noted previously, a manufacturer may be liable for Part B inflation rebates for utilization in quarters starting with the first quarter of 2023. Manufacturers may be liable for civil monetary penalties for violations of this program.

Statutory or regulatory changes or CMS guidance could affect the average sales price calculations for approved products and the resulting Medicare payment rate, and could negatively impact results of operations. For example, the IRA, among other things, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate, with respect to Medicare units and subject to a specified cap, the price of a set number of certain high Medicare spend drugs and biologicals per year with the first negotiated prices taking effect starting in 2026. The IRA established a Medicare Part B inflation rebate scheme, under which, generally speaking, manufacturers will owe rebates if the average sales price of a Part B drug increases faster than the pace of inflation. Failure to timely pay a Part B inflation rebate is subject to a civil monetary penalty.

These or any other public policy changes could impact the market conditions for our product candidates. We further expect continued scrutiny on government price reporting and pricing more generally from Congress, agencies, and other bodies, and are seeing an increase in state interest in price reporting, transparency, and other policies to address drug pricing concerns.

In order to be eligible to have products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs, as applicable, and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, a manufacturer is required to participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. Under this program, the manufacturer is obligated to make its covered drugs available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to four federal agencies — the VA, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Public Health Service and U.S. Coast Guard — that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price (the “FCP”). The FCP is based on the non-federal average manufacturer price (“Non-FAMP”), which the manufacturer calculates and reports to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. A manufacturer would also need to participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which it will pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by the manufacturer, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts. Significant civil monetary penalties can be applied a manufacturer is found to have knowingly submitted any false average manufacturer price, best price, or Non-FAMP information to the government or fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis. Such conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate the Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for covered outpatient drugs. Civil monetary penalties could also be applied if a manufacturer is found to have charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. In addition, claims submitted to federally-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, for drugs priced based on incorrect pricing data provided by a manufacturer can implicate the False Claims Act.

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, our business is subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. These laws include, but are not limited to, the following:

•

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. A violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute may be established without proving actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, damages, civil monetary penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing, or recommending pharmaceuticals, including certain discounts, or engaging such individuals as consultants, speakers or advisors, may be subject to scrutiny if they do not fit squarely within the exception or safe harbor. Federal enforcement agencies also have shown increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement and co-pay support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Moreover, there are no safe harbors for many common practices, such as educational and research grants, charitable donations, product support and patient assistance programs. Arrangements that implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute and do not fit within an exception or safe harbor are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether, based on the facts and circumstances, they violate the statute.

•

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits any person from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by private individuals known as qui tam relators in the name of the government, and who may share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have faced enforcement actions under the False Claims Act for, among other things, providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product and distributing guidance to prescribers and other customers that affected customers' billing or coding practices on claims submitted to the federal government. Other companies have faced enforcement actions for causing false claims to be submitted because of the company's marketing of the product for unapproved uses.

•

HIPAA prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors. HIPAA also prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. HIPAA also imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA imposes privacy and security obligations on covered entity health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, as well as their “business associates” – certain persons or entities that create, receive, maintain, or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a specified service or performing a function on behalf of a covered entity. HIPAA has four tiers of civil monetary penalties and grants state attorneys enforcement authority. The Department of Justice also may impose criminal penalties. Additionally, certain states have adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA, and numerous federal and state laws, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, including, for example, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, and the California Consumer Privacy Act, govern the collection, use, and disclosure and protection of certain health-related and other personal information.

•

Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA, other than potentially with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we may obtain health information from third parties that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, and other privacy and data security and consumer protection laws, and we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly receive individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA, and could also potentially be subject to other civil and/or criminal penalties if we obtain, use or disclose information in a manner not permitted by other privacy and data security and consumer protection laws.

•

The majority of states, as well as many of the non-US jurisdiction where we may operate, also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Several states now require pharmaceutical companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products in those states and to report gifts and payments to individual health care providers in those states. Some of these states also prohibit certain marketing-related activities including the provision of gifts, meals, or other items to certain health care providers. Other states have laws requiring pharmaceutical sales representatives to be registered or licensed, and still others impose limits on co-pay assistance that pharmaceutical companies can offer to patients. In addition, several states require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs or marketing codes.

•

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments program, and its implementing regulations, requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to direct or indirect payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held in the company by physicians and their immediate family members.

Compliance with such laws and regulations requires substantial resources. Because of the breadth of these various fraud and abuse laws, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Such a challenge could have material adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In the event governmental authorities conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations, they may impose sanctions under these laws, which are potentially significant and may include civil monetary penalties, damages, exclusion of an entity or individual from participation in government health care programs, criminal fines and imprisonment, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other settlement to resolve allegations of violations of these laws, as well as the potential curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

In addition, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 prohibits corporations and their intermediaries from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any official of another country, government staff member, political party or political candidate to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in that capacity.

Human Capital Resources

As of March 31, 2025, we had a total of six full-time employees, all of whom are located in the United States. Our employees have significant prior experience within the pharmaceutical, and biotech industries. We continue to focus on building a high performing organization through our emphasis on accountability for results as measured by our performance development process. To help ensure that employees fully understand the Company’s long-term strategy, and how their work contributes to the Company’s success, we utilize a variety of channels to facilitate open and direct communication, including: regular calls with all employees, and ongoing update communications as needed.

Corporate Structure

We were incorporated on February 1, 2002 under Part 1A of the Companies Act (Québec) under the name “9113-0310 Québec Inc.” On February 14, 2011, the Business Corporations Act (Québec) came into effect and replaced the Companies Act (Québec). On August 7, 2008, pursuant to a Certificate of Amendment, we changed our name to “Acasti Pharma, Inc.” We became a reporting issuer in the Province of Québec on November 17, 2008. On August 27, 2021, Acasti Pharma, Inc. completed its acquisition of Grace Therapeutics Inc., a privately held emerging biopharmaceutical company focused on developing innovative drug delivery technologies for the treatment of rare and orphan diseases via a merger. Following completion of the merger, Grace Therapeutics Inc. became our wholly owned subsidiary and was renamed Acasti Pharma U.S. Inc.

On October 1, 2024, we changed our jurisdiction of incorporation from the Province of Québec in Canada to the Province of British Columbia in Canada (“Acasti British Columbia”) pursuant to a “continuance” effected in accordance with Chapter XII of the Business Corporations Act (Québec) (the “Continuance”). On October 7, 2024, we changed our jurisdiction of incorporation from the Province of British Columbia in Canada to the State of Delaware (“Acasti Delaware”) in the United States pursuant to a “continuance” effected in accordance with Section 308 of the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) and a “domestication” (the “Domestication”) under Section 388 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”). Both the Continuance and the Domestication were approved by our shareholders at our Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders held on September 30, 2024. Effective on October 28, 2024, we changed our corporate name to “Grace Therapeutics, Inc.”. Effective on October 28, 2024, we changed the corporate name of our subsidiary to “Grace Therapeutics U.S., Inc.” (“Grace U.S.”).

Prior to the Continuance and Domestication, our Class A common shares, without par value per share (“common shares”), were listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) under the symbol “ACST.” Upon the effectiveness of the Continuance, each of our outstanding common shares at the time of the Continuance remained issued and outstanding as a common share, without par value per share, of Acasti British Columbia. Upon effectiveness of the Domestication, each outstanding common share of Acasti British Columbia at the time of the Domestication automatically became one outstanding share of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of Acasti Delaware (“common stock”).

Information regarding stockholder tax consequences of the Domestication and potential tax elections is available in our Registration Statement on Form S-4 originally filed with the SEC on June 27, 2024, as amended on July 31, 2024.

YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR TAX ADVISORS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF U.S. FEDERAL TAX LAWS TO YOUR PARTICLAR SITUATION, AS WELL AS ANY TAX CONSEQUENCES ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY STATE, LOCAL OR NON-U.S. JURISDICTION.

Available Information

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports are filed, or will be filed, as applicable, with the SEC, and the Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”). These reports are available free of charge on our website, https://www.gracetx.com/, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with or furnish such reports to the SEC and the CSA. Information contained on, or accessible through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the inclusion of our website address in this document is an inactive textual reference.

Additionally, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov and our filings with the CSA may be accessed through the CSA’s System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval at https://www.sedarplus.ca/.

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

Risks Factors Relating to our Business

We may not achieve our publicly announced milestones on time, or at all.

From time to time, we may publicly announce the timing of certain events that we expect to occur, such as the anticipated timing of upcoming new drug application filing. These statements are forward-looking and are based on the best estimate of management at the time relating to the occurrence of the events. However, the actual timing of these events may differ from what has been publicly disclosed. The timing of events such as completion of a clinical trial, discovery of a new product candidate, filing of an application to obtain regulatory approval, beginning of commercialization of products, completion of a strategic partnership, or announcement of additional clinical trials for a product candidate may ultimately vary from what is publicly disclosed. These variations in timing may occur as a result of different events, including the nature of the results obtained during a clinical trial or during a research phase, problems with a supplier or a distribution partner or any other event having the effect of delaying the publicly announced timeline. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law. Any variation in the timing of previously announced milestones could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or the trading price of our common stock.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our lead drug candidate, GTx-104

Our business and future success are substantially dependent on our ability to successfully and timely develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize our lead product candidate, GTx-104. Any delay or setback in the development of GTx-104 could adversely affect our business. Our planned development, approval and commercialization of GTx-104 may fail to be completed in a timely manner or at all. As part of our strategic realignment plan, we determined to focus primarily on the development of GTx-104, which concentrates the level of our drug development risk on one drug candidate. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to obtain approval for GTx-104 or any other of our drug candidates from the FDA or any foreign regulatory authority or that we will obtain such approval in a timely manner.

We may not be able to maximize value from our de-prioritized drug candidates, GTx-102 and GTx-101, through either development, out-licensing or sale.

Our GTx-102 and GTx-101 drug candidates are at an earlier development stage than GTx-104 and will require additional time and resources to develop. As part of our strategic realignment plan, we determined to focus primarily on the development of GTx-104 and to de-prioritize the development of GTx-102 and GTx-101. While we will continue to seek ways to maximize the value of GTx-102 and GTx-101, including through subsequent development, out-licensing or sale, we may not be successful in doing so.

We may not be able to maintain our operations and advance our research and development and commercialization of our GTx-104 lead drug candidate without additional funding.

We have incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. To date, we have financed our operations through public offerings and private placements of securities, proceeds from exercises of warrants, rights and options, and receipt of research tax credits and research grant programs. Our cash and cash equivalents were $22.0 million as of March 31, 2025 and $23.0 million as of March 31, 2024.

Our current assets, as of March 31, 2025, are projected to support our current liabilities as at that date when combined with the projected level of our expenses through at least twelve months from the issuance date of the audited consolidated financial statements included with this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including expenses in connection with the NDA for GTx-104, pre-commercial planning, commercial team buildout, and product launch if GTx-104 is approved. We expect that additional capital will be required by us to support the commercial launch of GTx-104, if approved. To fully execute our business plan, we plan to raise the necessary capital primarily through additional securities offerings and multiple sources of non-dilutive capital, such as grants or loans and strategic alliances. Therefore, if we determine to continue development of GTx-102 and GTx-101, significant additional funding will be needed.

We have no history of commercializing drugs, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our operations to date have been largely focused on raising capital and developing products for rare and orphan diseases, including undertaking preclinical studies and conducting clinical trials. We have not yet received FDA approval of GTx-104, and as such we have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully supply GTx-104 for commercial sale or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer history of successfully developing and commercializing drugs.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the principal members of our executive team. While members of our executive team have significant industry experience, they have not been with the Company for long. Any of our executive officers could leave our employment at any time, as all of our employees are “at will” employees. Recruiting and retaining qualified employees for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled executives and other personnel in our industry, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel is intense and the turnover rate can be high. As we build our organization in accordance with our strategic realignment, we may not be able to attract and retain personnel on terms that are favorable to us given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical companies for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, failure to succeed in clinical studies may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit key executives or the loss of the services of any executive or key employee might impede the progress of our development and commercialization objectives.

We may need to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations and our ability to compete.

If our drug development efforts are successful, we expect to expand our employee base to increase our managerial, scientific, engineering, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other resources and to hire more consultants and contractors. Future growth would impose significant additional responsibilities on our management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees, consultants and contractors. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, or give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Future growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our existing or future product candidates. Our future financial performance and our ability to sell and commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

We face potential product liability, and if claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials, and the sale of any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our product candidates. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

•

impairment of our business reputation;

•

withdrawal of clinical study participants

•

costs due to related litigation

•

distraction of management’s attention from our primary business

•

substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants; and

•

the inability to commercialize our product candidates.

Our current product liability insurance coverage may not be sufficient to reimburse 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 or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful product liability claims or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

We rely on information technology and any failure, inadequacy, interruption, or security lapse of that technology, including any cybersecurity incidents, could harm our ability to operate our business effectively.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties with which we contract are vulnerable to damage from cyber-attacks, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. System failures, accidents or security incidents could cause interruptions in our operations and could result in a material disruption of our drug product development and clinical activities and business operations, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. The loss of drug product development or clinical trial data could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security incident were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and our development programs, and the development of our product candidates could be delayed, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products or review other regulatory submissions can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, a reduction in the FDA’s workforce and its ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, shifting policy priorities as a result of changes in the U.S. presidential administration and political appointees tasked to oversee the agency, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also increase the time to meet with and receive agency feedback, accept, review and/or approve our submissions, conduct inspections, issue regulatory guidance, or take other actions that facilitate the development, approval and marketing of regulated products, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government proposals to reduce or eliminate budgetary deficits may include reduced allocations to the FDA and other related government agencies. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. Further, the current U.S. presidential administration recently established the Department of Government Efficiency, which implemented a federal government hiring freeze and announced certain additional efforts to reduce federal government employee headcount and the size of the federal government. It is unclear how these executive actions or other potential actions by the current U.S. presidential administration or other parts of the federal government will impact the FDA or other regulatory authorities that oversee our business. These budgetary pressures may reduce the FDA’s ability to perform its responsibilities. If a significant reduction in the FDA’s workforce occurs, the FDA’s budget is significantly reduced or a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting business as usual or conducting inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions or take other actions critical to the development or marketing of our product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Unfavorable global economic conditions and geopolitical events, including as a result of trade tensions between the U.S. and China, could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations, including conduct of our clinical trials and our manufacturing activities.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. The financial markets and the global economy may also be adversely affected by the current or anticipated impact of military conflict, including the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, terrorism or other political events, including as a result of trade tensions between the U.S. and China. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other countries in response to conflicts, including in Ukraine, may also adversely impact the financial markets and the global economy, and any economic countermeasures by the affected countries or others could exacerbate market and economic instability. We have conducted business outside of the U.S. in the past and may do so in the future. Clinical trials for our product candidates outside of the U.S. and unfavorable economic conditions resulting in the weakening of the U.S. dollar would make those clinical trials more costly to operate. Furthermore, a severe or prolonged economic downturn, higher inflation and interest rates, political disruption or other geopolitical events, including an expansion of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine or instigation of other military conflicts, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including weakened demand for our product candidates or any future product candidates, if authorized or approved, and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all.

A weak or declining economy or political disruption, including any international trade disputes, or changes in laws or policies governing the terms of international trade, and in particular increased trade restrictions, tariffs or taxes on imports from countries where we manufacture products could strain our manufacturers or suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption or increased manufacturing and distribution costs. For example, in 2025, the U.S. imposed tariffs on certain imports from Canada, Mexico and China. Historically, tariffs have led to increased trade and political tensions. In response to tariffs, other countries have implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Political tensions as a result of trade policies could reduce trade volume, investment, technological exchange and other economic activities between major international economies, resulting in a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets.

We face risks related to the personal data we collect, process, and share.

Our ability to conduct our business is dependent on the data that we collect, process, and share in discovering, developing, and commercializing drug products. These data are often considered personal data and are therefore regulated by data privacy laws in the United States and abroad.

We have conducted business outside the U.S. in the past and may do so in the future. These activities subject us to additional data protection authority oversight and require us to comply with stringent local and regional data privacy laws, including the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations (the "GDPR"). The GDPR has a wide range of compliance obligations relating to the processing and protection of personal data, including obligations to having a lawful basis for processing personal data (which may in certain situations require explicit consent of data subjects), providing detailed information about the processing activities, dealing with restrictions on sharing of personal data with third parties and the transferring of personal data out of the EU, having contractual arrangements in place where required (such as with clinical trial sites and vendors), reporting in certain instances personal data breaches to data protection authorities and/or affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, responding to privacy rights requests and keeping records of processing activities. Violations of the GDPR carry significant financial penalties for noncompliance (including possible fines of up to 4% of global annual turnover for the preceding financial year or €20 million, whichever is higher). The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with data protection authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR.

In addition to the GDPR, EU Member States have issued their own implementation legislation and other privacy, data protection and ePrivacy legislation. Moreover, other countries are issuing privacy and data protection legislation, generally modeled after the GDPR. These privacy and data protection laws and regulations increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and compliance has been and is expected to continue to be difficult, constantly evolving, costly and time consuming. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data protection laws, to protect against security incidents, or to alleviate issues caused by such incidents. In addition, if our efforts to comply with applicable privacy and data protection laws and regulations are not successful, it could adversely affect our business. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us, including but not limited to imposition of significant penalties, private litigation (including class actions) and/or adverse publicity that could negatively affect our business.

Several U.S. states have proposed and passed consumer privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, includes certain transparency and other requirements to protect personal data and grants California consumers with certain rights regarding their personal data. In addition, California consumers have the right to bring a private right of action in connection with data security incidents involving certain elements of personal data. Additionally, other jurisdictions, such as Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut, have enacted similar legislation and/or regulations. Health-specific consumer privacy laws were also passed in multiple states, including Washington and Nevada. These laws and regulations are constantly evolving and may impose limitations on our business activities.

At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) sets expectations for taking appropriate steps to safeguard consumers’ personal information and providing a level of privacy or security commensurate to promises made to individuals. The FTC expects a company’s data privacy and security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to help manage risks. Failure to meet these standards may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Enforcement by the FTC under the FTC Act can result in civil penalties or enforcement actions. The FTC also has the power to enforce the Health Breach Notification Rule, which imposes notification obligations on companies for breaches of certain health information contained in personal health records. The FTC has brought enforcement actions under both Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Health Breach Notification Rule.

If we fail to comply with applicable federal, state, local, or foreign regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our ability to commercialize our products. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and could result in additional regulatory oversight.

Risks Related to Development, Testing and Commercialization of Our Products

We intend to seek FDA approval through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for our lead drug candidate GTx-104. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant.

If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for GTx-104, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for our drug candidates would likely substantially increase. Moreover, an inability to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market faster than our drug candidates, which could materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for a drug candidate, we cannot assure you that we will receive the requisite or timely approvals for commercialization of such drug candidate.

In addition, it is possible that our competitors may file citizens’ petitions with the FDA in an attempt to persuade the FDA that our drug candidates, or the clinical studies that support their approval, contain deficiencies. Such actions by our competitors could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2).

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development.

Clinical testing, even when utilizing the 505(b)(2) pathway, is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process, even with active ingredients that have previously been approved by the FDA as safe and effective. The results of pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials of our drug candidates may not be predictive of the results of later stage clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials.

Our drug candidates are in various stages of development. Clinical trial failures may occur at any stage and may result from a multitude of factors both within and outside our control, including flaws in formulation, adverse safety or efficacy profile and flaws in trial design, among others. If the trials result in negative or inconclusive results, we or our collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to discontinue trials of our drug candidates or conduct additional clinical trials or pre-clinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. For these reasons, our future clinical trials may not be successful.

Delays in clinical trials are common and have many causes, and any delay could result in increased costs to us and could jeopardize or delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commence drug product sales. We may also find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent development of our drug candidates.

We may experience delays in clinical trials of our drug candidates. Our planned clinical trials may not begin on time, have an effective design, enroll a sufficient number of patients or be completed on schedule, if at all. Our clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including:

●

inability to raise or delays in raising funding necessary to initiate or continue a trial;

●

delays in obtaining regulatory approval to commence a trial;

●

delays in reaching agreement with the FDA on final trial design;

●

imposition of a clinical hold for safety reasons or following an inspection of our clinical trial operations or trial sites by the FDA or other regulatory authorities;

●

delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), or contract research organizations (“CROs”), and clinical trial sites, or failure by such CMOs to complete the manufacturing of clinical trial materials or CROs to follow and carry out the clinical study protocol at each site in accordance with the terms of our agreements with them;

●

delays in obtaining required institutional review board (“IRB”), approval at each site;

●

difficulties or delays in having patients’ complete participation in a trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;

●

clinical sites electing to terminate their participation in one of our clinical trials, which would likely have a detrimental effect on subject enrollment;

●

time required to add new clinical sites; or

●

delays by our CMOs to produce and deliver sufficient supply of clinical trial materials.

If initiation or completion of our planned clinical trials is delayed for any of the above reasons or other reasons, our development costs may increase, our regulatory approval process could be delayed and our ability to commercialize and commence sales of our drug candidates could be materially harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our drug candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our drug candidates as well as completion of required follow-up periods. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics or to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment is and completion of the trials are affected by a variety of factors, including:

●

severity and prevalence of the disease under investigation;

●

design of the trial protocol;

●

size of the patient population;

●

eligibility criteria for the trial in question;

●

perceived risks and benefits of the drug candidate under trial;

●

proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients;

●

availability of competing therapies and clinical trials;

●

efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;

●

patient referral practices of physicians; and

●

ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a drug candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. It is possible that none of our existing drug candidates or any drug candidates we may seek to develop will ever obtain regulatory approval in the United States or other jurisdictions.

Our drug candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

●

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree that our changes to branded reference drugs meet the criteria for the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway or foreign regulatory pathways;

●

we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a drug candidate is safe and effective or comparable to its branded reference product for its proposed indication;

●

the results of any clinical trials we conduct may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;

●

we may be unable to demonstrate that a drug candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;

●

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and

●

the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change significantly in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in us failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our drug candidates, which would harm our business, results of operations and prospects significantly. The development of our product candidates also may be delayed by other events beyond our control. For example, actions to limit federal agency budgets or personnel, may result in reductions to the FDA’s budget, employees, and operations, as well as changes to FDA regulatory programs, all of which may lead to slower response times and longer review periods, potentially affecting our ability to progress development of our product candidates, undergo regulatory inspections or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

We have limited experience using the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway to submit an NDA or any similar drug approval filing to the FDA, and we cannot be certain that any of our drug candidates will receive regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our drug candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our drug candidates, our revenue will be dependent, to a significant extent, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval. If the markets for patients or indications that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such drug products, if approved.

If a product candidate causes undesirable side effects, then we may be unable to receive regulatory approval or market acceptance for such product candidate.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the testing process that could delay or prevent the commercialization of any of our product candidates, including the occurrence of significant adverse events in clinical trials. Such significant adverse events could lead to clinical trial challenges, such as difficulties in patient recruitment, retention, and adherence, potential product liability claims, and possible trial termination by us, regulatory authorities, and/or an IRB or ethics committees. These types of adverse events and clinical trial challenges could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates. Significant adverse events may also lead regulatory authorities to require additional warnings on the label for such product, require us to conduct additional costly post-marketing studies or trials, require us to develop a REMS, among other possible requirements. If the product candidate has already been approved, such approval may be withdrawn. Any delay in, denial, or withdrawal of marketing approval for one of our product candidates will adversely affect our financial position. Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, undesirable side effects may limit the product’s commercial viability. Patients may not wish to use our product, physicians may not prescribe our product, and our reputation may suffer. Any of these events may significantly harm our business and financial prospects.

Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often complex in nature, may be very expensive and time-consuming, may divert our management’s attention from other aspects of our business and may result in unfavorable outcomes that could adversely impact our ability to launch and market our drug candidates, or to prevent third parties from competing with our drug products and drug candidates.

In particular, our commercial success depends in large part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties for existing approved drug products. Because we intend to utilize the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for the approval of our drug products and drug candidates, we rely in whole or in part on studies conducted by third parties related to those approved drug products.

Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending or subsequently filed patent applications which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by our drug products or drug candidates. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our drug candidates, including the formulation, method of use, any method or process involved in the manufacture of any of our drug candidates, any molecules or intermediates formed during such manufacturing process or any other attribute of the final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our drug candidates unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Parties making claims against us may request and/or obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our drug candidates on a temporary or permanent basis. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products or manufacturing processes, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research, manufacture clinical trial supplies or allow commercialization of our drug candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our drug candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our products, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

If the market opportunities for GTx-104 are smaller than we believe they are, our results of operations may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer.

We are focused on developing and commercializing products for rare and orphan diseases that have the potential to improve clinical outcomes by using our novel drug delivery technologies. Our projections of both the number of people who have these conditions, as well as the subset of people with these conditions who have the potential to benefit from treatment with GTx-104, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies or clinical trials may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these conditions. The number of patients in the United States and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with GTx-104, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Our ability to commercialize our drug candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors establish appropriate coverage and reimbursement levels for our drug candidates and related treatments. As a threshold for coverage and reimbursement, third-party payors generally require that drug products have been approved for marketing by the FDA. Third-party payors are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels for medical products. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. The cost containment measures that healthcare payors and providers are instituting, and the effect of any healthcare reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved drug. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain third-party coverage or reimbursement for our drug candidates in whole or in part.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models in the United States for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Some payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. Coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor, and one payor’s decision to cover a product does not ensure that other payors will also provide similar coverage. It is difficult to predict at this time what payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our commercialized products.

Additionally, the process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the price of such product or establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. As a result, the determination of coverage and reimbursement is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require the seller to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of the drug candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system in ways that could affect our future revenues and profitability and the future revenues and profitability of our potential customers. Under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare beneficiaries can obtain prescription drug coverage from private sector plans that are permitted to limit the number of prescription drugs that are covered in each therapeutic category and class on their formularies. If our products are not widely included on the formularies of these plans, our ability to market our products to the Medicare population could be harmed.

There also have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare costs to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect one or more of the following:

•

our ability to set a price that we desire for our drug products, if any are approved

•

our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability;

•

the future revenues of our potential customers, suppliers and collaborators; and

•

the availability of capital to us.

Any of these scenarios could harm our ability to market our products and generate revenues. It is also possible that other proposals having a similar effect will be adopted.

In the United States and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could impact the future results of our operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels with the stated objective to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. The ACA and its implementation continue to evolve as a result of legislative, administrative, and judicial developments. Further changes remain possible, which may potentially negatively affect pricing, coverage, or reimbursement for any products, if approved.

In addition to the ACA, U.S. governments continue to seek to adopt healthcare policies and reforms intended to curb healthcare costs, such as federal or state controls on payment for drugs (including under Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial health plans). For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 resulted in aggregate reductions, or sequestration, of Medicare payments to providers. Under current legislation, after a brief pause and reduction to 1% due to COVID-19, sequestration is currently set at 2% through the first 7 months of 2032. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, adjusted Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) requires, among other things, the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS”) to negotiate, with respect to Medicare units and subject to a specified cap, the price of a set number of certain high spend Medicare Part B and D drugs and biologicals per year, with prices taking effect starting in 2026. Failures to comply with requirements under the drug price negotiation program could subject us to an excise tax and/or a civil monetary penalty. In addition, the IRA establishes a Medicare Part B inflation rebate scheme, under which manufacturers will owe rebates to Medicare if, generally speaking, the average sales price of a Part B drug increases faster than the pace of inflation. The failure to timely pay an inflation rebate may result in a civil monetary penalty. The IRA and any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could negatively affect our future revenues and results of operations.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in seeking to pass legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing. Such measures could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects. For example, an emerging trend at the state level is the establishment of prescription drug affordability boards, some of which will prospectively permit certain states to establish upper payment limits for drugs that the state has determined to be “high-cost”. We expect that additional state reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand or lower pricing for any approved product, or additional pricing pressures.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States or any other jurisdiction. For example, there has been recent interest in incorporating so-called Most Favored Nation pricing into the U.S. healthcare system, under which prices for drugs in the United States could be tied to foreign reference prices through a mechanism that is not yet defined. There have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation and regulatory initiatives designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, evaluate the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government healthcare program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. If healthcare policies or reforms intended to curb healthcare costs are adopted or if we experience negative publicity with respect to pricing of our products or the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs generally, the prices that we charge for any approved products may be limited, our commercial opportunity may be limited and/or our revenues from sales of our products may be negatively impacted.

If we fail to comply with reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, if we participate in these programs, we could be subject to additional rebate requirements, penalties, or other sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and growth prospects.

Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, a participating manufacturer is required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for its covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by the state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by the manufacturer on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. If we fail to pay the required rebate amount or report pricing data on a timely basis, if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false pricing or product information to the government, if we fail to submit the required pricing data on a timely basis, or if we misclassify or misreport product information, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties. CMS could also decide to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs.

Federal law requires that a manufacturer also participate in the 340B Drug Pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs to specified “covered entities,” including community health centers and other entities that receive certain federal grants, as well as certain hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated based on the information reported under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. If we are found to have knowingly and intentionally charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price, we could be subject to significant civil monetary penalties and/or such failure also could be grounds for HRSA to terminate our agreement to participate in the 340B program, in which case our covered outpatient drugs would no longer be eligible for federal payment under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B program.

Federal law also requires that manufacturers report to CMS, on a quarterly basis, average sales price information for certain categories of drugs that are paid under the Medicare Part B program. Manufacturers calculate average sales price based on a statutorily defined formula as well as regulations and guidance. CMS may use the reported information to determine payment rates for drugs under Medicare Part B. If we are found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of our average sales price, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties. In addition, if we fail to provide timely information or knowingly provide false information, then we may also be subject to significant civil monetary penalties.

In addition, manufacturers must pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologicals, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of 10 percent of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. A failure to pay refunds for discarded drugs under the discarded drug refund program could subject us to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount.

Pricing and rebate calculations are complex, vary across products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by the manufacturer, governmental agencies, and courts. A manufacturer that becomes aware that its Medicaid reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, is obligated to resubmit corrected data up to three years after those data originally were due. Restatements and recalculations increase the costs for complying with the laws and policies governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. They also may affect the 340B ceiling price and therefore liability under the 340B program.

In order to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”), Department of Defense (“DoD”), Public Health Service, and Coast Guard (the Big Four agencies), and certain federal grantees, a manufacturer is required to participate in the VA Federal Supply Schedule pricing program, established under Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. Under this program, the manufacturer is obligated to make its covered drugs available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to the Big Four agencies that is no higher than the Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), which is a price calculated pursuant to a statutory formula. The FCP is derived from a calculated price point called the “non-federal average manufacturer price” (the “Non FAMP”), which the manufacturer calculates and reports to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant penalties for each item of false information. The FSS contract also contains extensive disclosure and certification requirements.

Under Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, the manufacturer is required to pay quarterly rebates to DoD on utilization of its innovator products that are dispensed through DoD’s Tricare network pharmacies to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non FAMP and FCP for the calendar year that the product was dispensed.

A man

SEC Form 10-K filed by Grace Therapeutics Inc.