As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2017.

Registration No. 333-      

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

 

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

Delaware		2834		47-4113275
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code Number)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

2 Gansevoort Street, 9^th Floor
New York, New York 10014
(781) 652-4500

(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices)

 

Lucy Lu, M.D.
Interim President & CEO
2 Gansevoort Street, 9^th Floor
New York, New York 10014
(781) 652-4500

(Name, Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Agent For Service)

 

Copies to:

Mark F. McElreath, Esq. Matthew W. Mamak, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 210-9400		Ivan Blumenthal, Esq. Lauren Luptak, Esq. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 935-3000

 

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Registration Statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. o

If this form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o

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

Large accelerated filer o                             Accelerated filer o                             Non-accelerated filer o
Smaller reporting company o		Emerging growth company x

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. o

 

CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE

Title Of Each Class Of Securities To Be Registered		Proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price (1)				Amount Of Registration Fee (2)
Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share		$	50,000,000			$	5,795.00

The Registrant hereby amends this registration statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this registration statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the registration statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and we are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not permitted.

SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED APRIL 28, 2017

PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS

      shares

Common Stock

 

This is the initial public offering of our common stock. No public market currently exists for our common stock. We are offering all of the shares of common stock offered by this prospectus. We expect the public offering price to be between $      and $     per share.

We have applied to list our common stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “ATXI.” No assurance can be given that our application will be approved.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act and may elect to comply with certain reduced reporting requirements. See the section titled “Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company.”

 

Investing in our common stock involves risks. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 10.

 

		Per Share				Total
Initial public offering price		$				$
Underwriting discounts and commissions (1)		$				$
Proceeds to Avenue, before expenses		$				$

The underwriters may also purchase up to an additional      shares of our common stock at the public offering price, less the underwriting discounts and commissions payable by us, to cover over-allotments, if any, within 30 days from the date of this prospectus. If the underwriters exercise this option in full, the total underwriting discounts and commissions will be $     and our total proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions but before expenses, will be $     .

The underwriters are offering the common stock as set forth under “Underwriting.” The underwriters expect to deliver the shares on or about              , 2017.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

 

Sole Book-Running Manager

RAYMOND JAMES

Co-Manager

NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION

The date of this prospectus is            , 2017.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Page
About this Prospectus			1
Industry and Market Data			1
Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company			1
Prospectus Summary			2
The Offering			6
Summary Financial and Other Data			8
Risk Factors			10
Special Cautionary Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements			41
Use of Proceeds			43
Dividend Policy			44
Capitalization			45
Dilution			46
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			48
Business			55
Management			76
Executive Compensation			83
Relationships and Related Transactions			90
Principal Stockholders			92
Description of Capital Stock			93
Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders			95
Shares Eligible for Future Sale			98
Underwriting (Conflicts of Interest)			100
Legal Matters			103
Experts			103
Where You Can Find More Information			103
Index to Financial Statements			F-1

Neither we nor the underwriters have authorized anyone to provide any information other than that contained in this prospectus or in any free writing prospectus prepared by or on behalf of us or to which we have referred you. We take no responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any other information that others may give you. We are offering to sell, and seeking offers to buy, shares of our common stock only in jurisdictions where such offers and sales are permitted. The information in this prospectus is accurate only as of its date, regardless of its time of delivery or of any sale of shares of our common stock. Our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may have changed since that date.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS

In this prospectus, unless the context suggests otherwise, references to “Avenue Therapeutics,” “Avenue,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Avenue Therapeutics, Inc.

This prospectus describes the specific details regarding this offering and the terms and conditions of the common stock being offered hereby and the risks of investing in our common stock. You should read this prospectus, any free writing prospectus and the additional information about us described in the section entitled “Where You Can Find More Information” before making your investment decision.

Neither we, nor any of our officers, directors, agents or representatives or underwriters, make any representation to you about the legality of an investment in our common stock. You should not interpret the contents of this prospectus or any free writing prospectus to be legal, business, investment or tax advice. You should consult with your own advisors for that type of advice and consult with them about the legal, tax, business, financial and other issues that you should consider before investing in our common stock.

INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA

This prospectus includes industry and market data that we obtained from periodic industry publications, third party studies and surveys, filings of public companies in our industry and internal company surveys. These sources include government and industry sources. Industry publications and surveys generally state that the information contained therein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Although we believe the industry and market data to be reliable as of the date of this prospectus, this information could prove to be inaccurate. Industry and market data could be wrong because of the method by which sources obtained their data and because information cannot always be verified with complete certainty due to the limits on the availability and reliability of raw data, the voluntary nature of the data gathering process and other limitations and uncertainties. In addition, we do not know all of the assumptions regarding general economic conditions or growth that were used in preparing the forecasts from the sources relied upon or cited herein.

IMPLICATIONS OF BEING AN EMERGING GROWTH COMPANY

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act, and may take advantage of certain exemptions from reporting requirements that are otherwise applicable to public companies. We may take advantage of these provisions until the earlier of (i) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the closing of this offering, (ii) the last day of the fiscal year (a) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.0 billion or (b) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our equity securities that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt in any three-year period. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and being exempt from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. Additionally, as an emerging growth company, we have elected to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies. As such, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates. We cannot predict if investors will find our shares less attractive because we may rely on these provisions. If some investors find our shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our shares and our share price may be more volatile.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this prospectus. This summary may not contain all of the information that you should consider before deciding to invest in our common stock. You should read this entire prospectus carefully, including the “Risk Factors” section and the financial statements and the notes thereto contained elsewhere in this prospectus before deciding to invest in our common stock.

Overview

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of an intravenous, or IV, formulation of tramadol HCl, or IV Tramadol, for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain. Tramadol is a synthetic dual-acting opioid with a well-established efficacy and safety profile, and has been used throughout the world for more than 30 years, accumulating an abundance of available clinical data. Oral tramadol is currently approved and marketed in the United States for moderate to moderately severe pain in adults, and physicians are already familiar with the oral dosage of the drug. Parenteral tramadol is approved and used for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain throughout much of the world, but there is no parenteral formulation currently available in the United States. We anticipate that the introduction of an intravenous formulation in the United States will address the current market need for an intravenous dosage of tramadol in the postoperative setting. We have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize IV Tramadol in the United States. We also plan to seek additional products and to develop them in the acute/intensive care hospital market.

In 2016, we completed a pharmacokinetics, or PK, study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers as well as an End-of-Phase 2, or EOP2, meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA. We plan to initiate a Phase 3 development program of IV Tramadol for the management of postoperative pain in 2017. We intend to conduct two pivotal Phase 3 trials for IV Tramadol. We plan to initiate the first Phase 3 trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy in the third quarter of 2017. We anticipate that we will have topline data as early as the second quarter of 2018. We plan to initiate the second Phase 3 trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominoplasty in the third quarter of 2018, upon successful completion of the bunionectomy study. Based on the enrollment pace of similar studies, we anticipate that we will have topline data from this second Phase 3 trial as early as mid-2019. We also plan to conduct an open-label safety study, which will run concurrently with the two Phase 3 trials. If these studies are successful, we plan to submit a new drug application, or an NDA, for IV Tramadol to treat moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, by the end of 2019.

Our Strategy

Our primary objective is to establish IV Tramadol as an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options for the management of postoperative pain. The key elements of our strategy include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Competition

Competition in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is intense. Our competitors include pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies, as well as universities and public and private research institutions. In addition, companies that are active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Many of our competitors have significantly greater capital resources, larger research and development staffs and facilities and greater experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing and marketing than we do. These organizations also compete with us to recruit qualified personnel, attract partners for joint ventures or other collaborations, and license technologies that are competitive with ours. To compete successfully in this industry we must identify novel and unique drugs or methods of treatment and then complete the development of those drugs as treatments in advance of our competitors.

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will compete with a number of opioid and non-opioid drugs that are currently available for the management of acute pain or in development. The most commonly used opioids in the postoperative and acute pain settings are morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl. The non-opioid drugs used in this setting include Ofirmev (IV acetaminophen) and IV formulations of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDS, such as Dyloject (diclofenac), Toradol (ketorolac), and Caldolor (ibuprofen). In addition, we also expect to compete with agents such as Exparel, a liposome injection of bupivacaine indicated for administration into the surgical site to produce postsurgical analgesia.

In addition to approved products, there are a number of product candidates in development for the management of acute pain. The late-stage pain development pipeline is replete with reformulations and fixed-dose combination products of already available therapies. Among specific drug classes, opioid analgesics and NSAIDs represent the greatest number of agents in development. Most investigational opioids that have reached the later stages of clinical development are new formulations of already marketed opioids. Likewise, investigational NSAIDs — mostly lower dose injectable reformulations of already approved compounds — are another significant area of late-stage drug development in the postoperative pain space. There are also several agents with novel mechanisms in clinical development, such as CR845 (Cara Therapeutics, Inc.) and TRV130 (Trevena, Inc.).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

U.S. Postoperative Pain Market Overview

We were formed to develop and market pharmaceutical products for the acute care setting in the United States. Our initial focus will be on developing our proprietary product candidate, IV Tramadol, for moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain. Even though the postoperative pain market is entrenched with low cost, generic pain relievers, we believe that there still remains a significant unmet medical need for safer and better-tolerated painkillers, which are also referred to as analgesics.

According to Decision Resources’ Acute Pain Report of October 2014, or the 2014 Pain Report, sales of analgesics delivered via parenteral routes (IV, subcutaneous, and intramuscular injections) for the management of acute pain totaled approximately $965 million in the United States in 2013. According to the 2014 Pain Report, there were approximately 9 million select common inpatient procedures performed, all of which likely required postoperative pain management, in the United States in 2013. According to IMS Health, injectable analgesics sold approximately $1 billion in the United States in 2015.

The major goal in the management of postoperative pain is minimizing the dose of medications to lessen side effects while still providing adequate analgesia/pain relief. This is best accomplished with multimodal and preemptive analgesia. An effective pain relief program should be individualized for the particular patient, operation, and circumstances. In clinical practice, as there is no standard set of guidelines to treat postoperative pain, hospitals and even hospital units have their own practice guidelines that are often well entrenched in physicians’ prescribing practices. These local guidelines are rooted in physician experience as it relates to anticipated severity of pain due to a particular surgical procedure, and are often modified with consideration to things like staffing limitations, availability of specific drugs and/or formulations, access to patient controlled analgesia, or PCA, systems, and formulary restrictions. Thus, treatment regimens vary widely from hospital to hospital, physician to physician and patient to patient.

Understanding the range of available interventions and considering the type of surgery is essential to safe and effective pain management. The general consensus among pain management practitioners is that use of more than one modality (i.e., molecules with different mechanisms or with different routes of administration) is optimal for successful postoperative pain management. The most commonly prescribed agents in the immediate postoperative pain market are typically acetaminophen, or APAP, NSAIDS, and opioid analgesics. APAP and NSAIDs are not sufficiently effective as the sole agent for pain management after major surgery in most patients. However, when used in conjunction with opioids, APAP and NSAIDs offer substantial benefits as the quality of analgesia is often improved or enhanced due to their differentiated mechanism of action. Nevertheless, the substantial side effects associated with these agents represent an important concern for patients and physicians to address. NSAIDS in particular have their own serious side effects, including increased post-surgery bleeding, peptic ulcer disease and renal impairment, and is associated with hepatic side effects.

We believe that, if approved, IV Tramadol will be an attractive option for physicians who treat postoperative pain. Tramadol is an established analgesic that physicians are already familiar with, and has documented efficacy and safety for moderate to moderately severe pain. In addition, as a Schedule IV controlled substance, tramadol has less potential for addiction and abuse than other narcotics widely prescribed for the management of postoperative pain. Combined with the availability of step-down therapy, we believe IV Tramadol’s differentiated safety profile could make it an attractive alternative in the management of acute postoperative pain.

Risks to Consider

Before investing in our common stock, you should carefully consider all the information in this prospectus, including matters set forth under the heading “Risk Factors.” We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NASDAQ listing standards and, as a result, qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware on February 9, 2015. Our executive offices are located at 2 Gansevoort St., 9^th Floor, New York, NY 10014. Our telephone number is 781-652-4500, and our website is www.avenuetx.com. We are a Delaware corporation, which is majority-owned and controlled by Fortress. Fortress is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing novel pharmaceutical and biotechnology products and was incorporated in Delaware in June 2006. Following the completion of this offering, Fortress will maintain voting control of us. See “Relationships and Related Transactions” for a description of our relationship with Fortress. In addition, in September 2016, Fortress acquired 56.1% of National Holdings, Inc., which owns National Securities Corp., which is a FINRA member and will participate in this offering. See “Relationships and Related Transactions” and “Underwriting” for additional information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE OFFERING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The number of shares of our common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on 10,023,810 shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2016, representing 9,773,810 shares of our common stock outstanding and 250,595 shares of our common stock issued to Fortress pursuant to the PIK Dividend, and excludes the following:

Unless otherwise indicated, all information in this prospectus reflects and assumes no exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional      shares of our common stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA

The following tables summarize our financial data and should be read together with the section in this prospectus entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and results of operations” and our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP. We have no subsidiaries.

The following tables summarize our financial data. We have derived the following statements of operations data for the year ended December 31, 2016 and for the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) to December 31, 2015 from our audited financial statements. We have also derived the balance sheet data for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 from our audited financial statements. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that should be expected in the future.

(in thousands, except per share amounts)		For The Year Ended December 31, 2016				For The Period from February 9, 2015 (Inception) through December 31, 2015
Operating expenses:
Research and development		$	1,331			$	961
Research and development – licenses acquired			49				3,040
General and administration			997				842
Loss from operations			(2,377	)			(4,843 )
Interest expense			420				215
Interest expense – related party			192				168
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities			188				—
Net Loss		$	(3,177	)		$	(5,226 )
Net loss per common share outstanding, basic and diluted		$	(0.37	)		$	(0.64 )
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted			8,581,578				8,107,209

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		December 31, 2016				December 31, 2015				Pro Forma				Pro Forma as Adjusted (1)
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash		$	197			$	14			$				$
Total Assets		$	197			$	14			$				$
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses		$	506			$	491
Accrued expenses – related party			1,348				511
Interest payable			57				—
Accrued interest – related party			346				165
Notes payable – related party			2,848				1,165
NSC notes payable, short-term			1,000				—
Derivative warrant liability			314				114
Total current liabilities			6,419				2,446
Convertible notes payable, at fair value			200				—
NSC notes payable, long-term (net of debt discount of $174 and $297, respectively)			1,826				2,703
Total Liabilities			8,445				5,149
Commitments and Contingencies
Stockholders’ Deficit
Preferred Stock ($0.0001 par value), 2,000,000 shares authorized
Class A Preferred Stock, 250,000 and 0 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			—				—
Common Stock ($0.0001 par value), 50,000,000 shares authorized
Class A Common Stock, 0 and 7,000,000 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			—				1
Common shares; 9,773,810 and 2,150,000 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			1				—
Common stock issuable, 250,595 and 228,750 shares as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			49				40
Additional paid-in capital			105				50
Accumulated deficit			(8,403	)			(5,226	)
Total Stockholders’ Deficit			(8,248	)			(5,135	)
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Deficit		$	197			$	14			$				$

A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $      per share, which is the midpoint of the price range listed on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) each of cash and cash equivalents, additional paid-in capital, total stockholders’ equity (deficit) and total capitalization on a pro forma as adjusted basis by approximately $     million, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions.

An increase (decrease) of one million shares in the number of shares offered by us in the assumed initial public offering would increase our net tangible book value after this offering by approximately $     million, or $     per share, and decrease the dilution per share to new investors by approximately $     per share, assuming that the assumed public offering price remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

The number of shares of our common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on 10,023,810 shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2016, and excludes the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RISK FACTORS

The following information sets forth risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements we have made in this prospectus and those we may make from time to time. You should carefully consider the risks described below, in addition to the other information contained in this prospectus and any related free writing prospectus, before making an investment decision. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be harmed by any of these risks. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or other factors not perceived by us to present significant risks to our business at this time also may impair our business operations.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We currently have no drug products for sale, and only one drug product candidate, IV Tramadol. We are dependent on the success of IV Tramadol and cannot guarantee that we will be able to complete the required studies or that this product candidate will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized.

Our business success depends ultimately on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and successfully commercialize our only product candidate, IV Tramadol, and any significant delays in obtaining approval for and commercializing IV Tramadol will have a substantial adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

If approved, our ability to generate revenues from IV Tramadol will depend on our ability to:

We may not receive regulatory approval for IV Tramadol or future product candidates, or its or their approvals may be delayed, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

IV Tramadol and other future product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for our product candidate IV Tramadol or any future product candidates will prevent us from commercializing the product candidates. We have not received approval to market IV Tramadol from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in conducting preclinical and clinical studies and filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third party contract research organizations as well as consultants and vendors to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our product candidate IV Tramadol or any future product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. If our product candidate or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug in this way, which could limit sales of the product. In addition, our third party supplier may not pass an inspection by the FDA of its manufacturing facilities and we may be forced to identify, qualify and implement additional suppliers.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if approval is granted at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidate or any future product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve our product candidate or any future product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of these scenarios could compromise the commercial prospects for our product candidate or any future product candidates.

If IV Tramadol is approved and our contract manufacturer fails to produce the product in the volumes that we require on a timely basis, to produce the product according to the applicable quality standards and requirements, or to comply with stringent regulations applicable to pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, we may face delays in the commercialization of this product candidate, lose potential revenues or be unable to meet market demand.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls, and the use of specialized processing equipment. We have entered into a development and supply agreement for the completion of pre-commercialization manufacturing development activities and the manufacture of commercial supplies of IV Tramadol. Any termination or disruption of this relationship may materially harm our business and financial condition, and frustrate any commercialization efforts for this product candidate.

In order to meet anticipated demand for IV Tramadol, if this product candidate is approved, we have one manufacturer to provide us clinical and commercial supply of IV Tramadol in accordance with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP. We also plan to qualify a backup manufacturer.

All of our contract manufacturers must comply with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations, including cGMP requirements enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program, as well as controlled substance handling and security requirements, and we have little control over their compliance with these regulations. Any failure to comply with applicable regulations may result in fines and civil penalties, suspension of production, suspension or delay

TABLE OF CONTENTS

in product approval, product seizure or recall, or withdrawal of product approval, and would limit the availability of our product. Any manufacturing defect or error discovered after products have been produced and distributed could result in even more significant consequences, including costly recall procedures, re-stocking costs, damage to our reputation and potential for product liability claims.

If the commercial manufacturers upon whom we rely to manufacture IV Tramadol, and any other product candidates we may in-license, fail to deliver the required commercial quantities on a timely basis at commercially reasonable prices, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and we would lose potential revenues.

If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of IV Tramadol or our future product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development of some of our product candidates.

If our product candidate or future product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In our industry, many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In the event that our preclinical or clinical trials reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development or deny approval of our product candidate or future product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The FDA could also issue a letter requesting additional data or information prior to making a final decision regarding whether or not to approve a product candidate. The number of requests for additional data or information issued by the FDA in recent years has increased, and resulted in substantial delays in the approval of several new drugs. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate or future product candidates could also result in the inclusion of serious risk information in our product labeling, application of burdensome post-market requirements, or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications, and in turn prevent us from commercializing and generating revenues from the sale of our product candidate. Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial and could result in potential product liability claims.

For example, some of the adverse events observed in the IV Tramadol clinical trials completed to date include nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, sweating, vomiting, dry mouth, somnolence and hypotension.

Additionally, if one or more of our current or future product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by this product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining marketing approval and market acceptance of our product candidate or future product candidates or could substantially

TABLE OF CONTENTS

increase our commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its sale.

Even if IV Tramadol receives regulatory approval, it and any other products we may market will remain subject to substantial regulatory scrutiny.

IV Tramadol and any other product candidates we may license or acquire will also be subject to ongoing requirements and review of the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include, among others, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information and reports, registration and listing requirements, ongoing cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping of the drug.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and off-label information and if we do not market our products for only their approved indications and on-label information, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing as well as false claims liability. Violations of the FDCA relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We will need to obtain FDA approval of any proposed product brand names, and any failure or delay associated with such approval may adversely impact our business.

A pharmaceutical product candidate cannot be marketed in the United States or other countries until we have completed a rigorous and extensive regulatory review processes, including approval of a brand name. Any brand names we intend to use for our product candidates will require approval from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product brand names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a product brand name if it believes the name inappropriately implies medical claims. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product brand names, we may be required to adopt an alternative brand name for our product candidates. If we adopt an alternative brand name, we would lose the benefit of our existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product brand name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. We may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Our current and future relationships with customers and third party payors in the United States and elsewhere may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third party payors, distributors, retailers, marketers and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and similar state or foreign laws which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we sell, market and distribute any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by U.S. federal and state governments and by governments in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not necessarily limited to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, including our collaborators, is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business.

Regulatory approval for any approved product is limited by the FDA to those specific indications and conditions for which clinical safety and efficacy have been demonstrated.

Any regulatory approval is limited to those specific diseases and indications for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by the FDA. In addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product also requires FDA approval. If

TABLE OF CONTENTS

we are not able to obtain FDA approval for any desired future indications for our products, our ability to effectively market and sell our products may be reduced and our business may be adversely affected.

While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s approved labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities, our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications that are specifically approved by the FDA. These “off-label” uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use or off-label information. If our promotional activities fail to comply with these regulations or guidelines, we may be subject to warnings from, or enforcement action by, these authorities. In addition, our failure to follow FDA rules and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising may cause the FDA to suspend or withdraw an approved product from the market, require a recall or corrective advertising, institute fines, or could result in disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions or civil or criminal prosecution by the government, any of which could harm our reputation and business.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of, and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

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

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and certain disabled people and introduced a reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this law provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this law and future laws could decrease the coverage and price that we will receive for any approved products. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Therefore, any limitations in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in reductions in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, became law. The ACA is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidate are the following:

President Trump ran for office on a platform that supported the repeal of the ACA and one of his first actions after his inauguration was to sign an Executive Order commanding federal agencies to try to waive or delay requirements of the ACA that impose economic or regulatory burdens on states, families, the healthcare industry and others. The Executive Order also declares that the administration will seek the “prompt repeal” of the law and that the government should prepare to “afford the states more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.” At this time, the immediate impact of the Executive Order is not clear. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we will receive for any approved product. Any reduction in payments from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public concern regarding the safety of opioid drug products such as IV Tramadol could delay or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval, result in the inclusion of serious risk information in our labeling, negatively impact market experience, or require us to undertake other activities that may entail additional costs.

In light of widely publicized events concerning the safety risk of certain drug products, the FDA, members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, medical professionals and the general public have raised concerns about potential controlled substance drug safety issues. These events have resulted in the withdrawal of drug products, revisions to drug labeling that further limit use of the drug products and the establishment of risk management programs. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, or FDAAA, grants significant expanded authority to the FDA, much of which is aimed at improving the safety of drug products before and after approval. In particular, the new law authorizes the FDA to, among other things, require post-approval studies and clinical trials, mandate changes to drug labeling to reflect new safety information and require risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for certain drugs, including certain currently approved drugs. It also significantly expands the federal government’s clinical trial registry and results databank, which we expect will result in significantly increased government oversight of clinical trials. Under the FDAAA, companies that violate these and other provisions of the new law are subject to substantial civil monetary penalties, among other regulatory, civil and criminal penalties. The increased attention to drug safety issues may result in a more cautious approach by the FDA in its review of data from our clinical trials. Data from clinical trials may receive greater scrutiny, particularly with respect to safety, which may make the FDA or other regulatory authorities more likely to require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. If the FDA requires us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials prior to approving IV Tramadol, our ability to obtain approval of this product candidate will be delayed. If the FDA requires us to provide additional clinical or preclinical data following the approval of IV Tramadol, the indications for which this product candidate is approved may be limited or there may be specific warnings or limitations on production dosing, and our efforts to commercialize IV Tramadol may be otherwise adversely impacted.

Rising public, medical, Congressional, and agency concern around the prescription of controlled substance drug products to patients and a growing movement to reduce the use of opioid drug products, to develop abuse-deterrent products, and to prevent dependence also could negatively impact our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from IV Tramadol if it is approved for marketing in the United States.

If the DEA decides to reschedule Tramadol from a Schedule IV controlled substance to a more restrictive Schedule, IV Tramadol could lose its competitive advantage, and our related clinical development and regulatory approval could be delayed or prevented.

In July 2014, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, classified Tramadol as a Schedule IV controlled substance. In comparison, other opioids, which have a high potential for abuse, are mostly classified as Schedule I and II controlled substances. If approved, IV Tramadol will be the only Schedule IV intravenous opioid on the market. However, in the current environment where the opioid epidemic is a recognized problem in the United States, there is a possibility that the DEA might reschedule Tramadol as a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance. Such a rescheduling would severely impair IV Tramadol’s current competitive advantage over traditional opioids and may affect our ability to market IV Tramadol as a safe alternative pain management product.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as

TABLE OF CONTENTS

our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. Available therapies for the indications we are pursuing can also affect enrollment in our clinical trials. Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including, but not necessarily limited to:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidate or future product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

We expect intense competition for IV Tramadol, and new products may emerge that provide different or better therapeutic alternatives for our targeted indications.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to rapid and intense technological change. We face, and will continue to face, competition in the development and marketing of IV Tramadol from academic institutions, government agencies, research institutions and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There can be no assurance that developments by others will not render IV Tramadol obsolete or noncompetitive. Furthermore, new developments, including the development of other drug technologies and methods of preventing the incidence of disease, occur in the pharmaceutical industry at a rapid pace. These developments may render IV Tramadol obsolete or noncompetitive.

IV Tramadol will compete with well-established products with similar indications. Competing products available for the management of pain include Ofirmev (IV acetaminophen) and IV formulations of NSAIDs such as Dyloject (diclofenac), Toradol (ketorolac), and Caldolor (ibuprofen). In addition, we also expect to compete with agents such as Exparel, a liposome injection of bupivacaine indicated for administration into the surgical site to produce postsurgical analgesia. In addition to approved products, there are a number of product candidates in development for the management of acute pain. The late-stage pain development pipeline is replete with reformulations and fixed-dose combination products of already available therapies. Among specific drug classes, opioid analgesics and NSAIDs represent the greatest number of agents in development. Most investigational opioids that have reached the later stages of clinical development are new formulations of already marketed opioids. Likewise, investigational NSAIDs — mostly lower dose injectable reformulations of already approved compounds — are another significant area of late-stage drug development in the postoperative pain space. There are also several agents with novel mechanisms in clinical development, such as CR845 (Cara Therapeutics, Inc.) and TRV130 (Trevena, Inc.).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Competitors may seek to develop alternative formulations of IV centrally acting synthetic opioid analgesics for our targeted indications that do not directly infringe on our in-licensed patent rights. The commercial opportunity for IV Tramadol could be significantly harmed if competitors are able to develop alternative formulations outside the scope of our in-licensed patents. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we are able to or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize IV Tramadol. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, safe, useful and less costly than ours and may be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

If IV Tramadol does not achieve broad market acceptance, the revenues that we generate from its sales will be limited.

The commercial success of IV Tramadol, if approved, will depend upon its acceptance by the medical community, our ability to ensure that the drug is included in hospital formularies, and coverage and reimbursement for IV Tramadol by third party payors, including government payors. The degree of market acceptance of IV Tramadol or any other product candidate we may license or acquire will depend on a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

If any product candidate that we develop does not provide a treatment regimen that is as beneficial as, or is not perceived as being as beneficial as, the current standard of care or otherwise does not provide patient benefit, that product candidate, if approved for commercial sale by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, likely will not achieve market acceptance. Our ability to effectively promote and sell IV Tramadol and any other product candidates we may license or acquire in the hospital marketplace will also depend on pricing and cost effectiveness, including our ability to produce a product at a competitive price and achieve acceptance of the product onto hospital formularies, as well as our ability to obtain sufficient third party coverage or reimbursement. Since many hospitals are members of group purchasing organizations, which leverage the purchasing power of a group of entities to obtain discounts based on the collective buying power of the group, our ability to attract customers in the hospital marketplace will also depend on our ability to effectively promote our product candidates to group purchasing organizations. We will also need to demonstrate acceptable evidence of safety and efficacy, as well as relative convenience and ease of administration. Market acceptance could be further limited depending on the prevalence and severity of any expected or unexpected adverse side effects associated with our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health care payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

If the government or third party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and payment rates for IV Tramadol or any future products we may license or acquire, if any, or if hospitals choose to use therapies that are less expensive, our revenue and prospects for profitability will be limited.

In both domestic and foreign markets, our sales of any future products will depend in part upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third party payors. Such third party payors include government health programs such as Medicare, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. In particular, many U.S. hospitals receive a fixed reimbursement amount per procedure for certain surgeries and other treatment therapies they perform. Because this amount may not be based on the actual expenses the hospital incurs, hospitals may choose to use therapies which are less expensive when compared to our product candidate or future product candidates. Accordingly, IV Tramadol or any other product candidates that we may in-license or acquire, if approved, will face competition from other therapies and drugs for these limited hospital financial resources. We may need to conduct post-marketing studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of any future products to the satisfaction of hospitals, other target customers and their third party payors. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. Our future products might not ultimately be considered cost-effective. Adequate third party coverage and reimbursement might not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or to enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We currently do not have a marketing or sales organization for the marketing, sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products. In order to commercialize any product candidate that receives marketing approval, we would need to build marketing, sales, distribution, managerial

TABLE OF CONTENTS

and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. In the event of successful development and regulatory approval of IV Tramadol or another product candidate, we expect to build a targeted specialist sales force to market or co-promote the product. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our future products, if any, on our own include, but are not necessarily limited to:

As an alternative to establishing our own sales force, we may choose to partner with third parties that have well-established direct sales forces to sell, market and distribute our products. There are risks involved with partnering with third party sales forces, including ensuring adequate training on the product, regulatory, and compliance requirements associated with promotion of the product.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials or complying with applicable regulatory requirements.

We rely on third party contract research organizations and clinical research organizations to conduct some of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials for IV Tramadol and for any future product candidates. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct some of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials. The agreements with these third parties might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, that could delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our legal and regulatory product development responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial and for ensuring that our preclinical studies are conducted in accordance with good laboratory practice, or GLP, as appropriate. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our clinical research organizations fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our

TABLE OF CONTENTS

clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

The third parties with whom we have contracted to help perform our preclinical studies or clinical trials may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our preclinical studies or clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

If any of our relationships with these third party contract research organizations or clinical research organizations terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative contract research organizations or clinical research organizations or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional contract research organizations or clinical research organizations involves additional cost and requires extensive training and management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new contract research organization or clinical research organization commences work. As a result, delays could occur, which could compromise our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our contract research organizations or clinical research organizations, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We also expect to rely on third party manufacturers or third party collaborators for the manufacture of commercial supply of any product candidates for which our collaborators or we obtain marketing approval. We may be unable to establish any agreements with third party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third party manufacturers, reliance on third party manufacturers entails additional risks, including, but not necessarily limited to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacture of our product candidates. Third party manufacturers may not be able to comply with the cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products.

IV Tramadol and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. We may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any replacement manufacturers.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or the DEA, restricts the importation of a controlled substance finished drug product when the same substance is commercially available in the United States, which could reduce the number of potential alternative manufacturers for IV Tramadol.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We rely on clinical data and results obtained by third parties that could ultimately prove to be inaccurate or unreliable.

As part of our strategy to mitigate development risk, we seek to develop product candidates with validated mechanisms of action and we utilize biomarkers to assess potential clinical efficacy early in the development process. This strategy necessarily relies upon clinical data and other results obtained by third parties that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or unreliable. Further, such clinical data and results may be based on products or product candidates that are significantly different from our product candidate or future product candidates. If the third party data and results we rely upon prove to be inaccurate, unreliable or not applicable to our product candidate or future product candidate, we could make inaccurate assumptions and conclusions about our product candidates and our research and development efforts could be compromised and called into question during the review or any marketing applications we submit.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

If we breach the agreement under which we license rights to IV Tramadol, we could lose the ability to continue to develop and commercialize this product candidate.

In February 2015, Fortress obtained an exclusive license to IV Tramadol for the U.S. market from Revogenex Ireland Ltd., or Revogenex, pursuant to the License Agreement; Fortress transferred the License Agreement to us. Because we have in-licensed the rights to this product candidate from a third party, if there is any dispute between us and our licensor regarding our rights under our License Agreement, our ability to develop and commercialize this product candidate may be adversely affected. Any uncured, material breach under our License Agreement could result in our loss of exclusive rights to our product candidate and may lead to a complete termination of our related product development efforts.

We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and commercial, scientific and clinical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

Our employees, consultants, or third party partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees, consultants, or third party partners could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee, consultant, or third party misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. The precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

We face potential product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability for IV Tramadol or other product candidates we may license or acquire and may have to limit their commercialization.

The use of IV Tramadol and any other product candidates we may license or acquire in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval expose us to the risk of product liability claims. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers or others using, administering or selling our

TABLE OF CONTENTS

products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against these claims, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We will obtain limited product liability insurance coverage for our upcoming clinical trials. However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us or 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. When needed, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidate in development, but we may be unable to obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any products approved for marketing. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to fall and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and adversely affect our business.

Our future growth depends on our ability to identify and acquire or in-license products and if we do not successfully identify and acquire or in-license related product candidates or integrate them into our operations, we may have limited growth opportunities.

An important part of our business strategy is to continue to develop a pipeline of product candidates by acquiring or in-licensing products, businesses or technologies that we believe are a strategic fit with our focus on the hospital marketplace. Future in-licenses or acquisitions, however, may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We have limited resources to identify and execute the acquisition or in-licensing of third party products, businesses and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure. In particular, we may compete with larger pharmaceutical companies and other competitors in our efforts to establish new collaborations and in-licensing opportunities. These competitors likely will have access to greater financial resources than us and may have greater expertise in identifying and evaluating new opportunities. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential acquisitions or in-licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. Although we believe that the safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed clinical trials for IV Tramadol 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 breach results in a loss or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we may incur liability and the further development of our product candidate may be delayed.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection in the United States with respect to IV Tramadol or any other product candidates that we may license or acquire and the methods we use to manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents and trade secrets against third party challenges. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates. We will only be able to protect our technologies from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets cover them.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. If our licensors or we fail to obtain or maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for IV Tramadol or any other product candidate we may license or acquire, third parties could use our proprietary information, which could impair our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability. Moreover, should we enter into other collaborations we may be required to consult with or cede control to collaborators regarding the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of our patents. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents has emerged to date in the United States. The patent situation outside the United States is even more uncertain. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after a first filing, or in some cases at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In the event that a third party has also filed a U.S. patent application relating to our product candidates or a similar invention, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial and it is possible that our efforts would

TABLE OF CONTENTS

be unsuccessful, resulting in a material adverse effect on our U.S. patent position. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. For example, the federal courts of the United States have taken an increasingly dim view of the patent eligibility of certain subject matter, such as naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences, amino acid sequences and certain methods of utilizing same, which include their detection in a biological sample and diagnostic conclusions arising from their detection. Such subject matter, which had long been a staple of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry to protect their discoveries, is now considered, with few exceptions, ineligible in the first place for protection under the patent laws of the United States. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents (if any) or in those licensed from third parties.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter parties review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, patent office trial, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, render unenforceable, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

The issuance of a patent does not foreclose challenges to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Therefore, our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned

TABLE OF CONTENTS

and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

The patent rights that we have in-licensed covering the infusion time and pharmacokinetics, or PK, profile for IV Tramadol are limited to a specific IV formulation of centrally acting synthetic opioid analgesic, and our market opportunity for this product candidate may be limited by the lack of patent protection for the active ingredient itself and other formulations that may be developed by competitors.

The active ingredients in IV Tramadol have been generic in the United States for a number of years. While we believe that the patent estate covering IV Tramadol (including but not limited to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,895,622; 9,561,195 and 9,566,253) provides strong protection, our market opportunity would be limited if a generic manufacturer could obtain regulatory approval for another IV formulation of tramadol and commercialize it without infringing on our patent.

Because it is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights, we may not be able to ensure their protection.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain, because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our issued patents or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, rendered unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in any litigation would harm our business.

Our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell IV Tramadol or any other product candidates that we may license or acquire depends upon our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the general fields of pain treatment and cover the use of numerous compounds and formulations in our targeted markets. Because of the uncertainty inherent in any patent or other litigation involving proprietary rights, we and our licensors may not be successful in defending intellectual property claims by third parties, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Regardless of the outcome of any litigation, defending the litigation may be expensive, time-consuming and distracting to management. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that IV Tramadol may infringe. There could also be existing patents of which we are not aware that IV Tramadol may inadvertently infringe.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we infringe on their patents or misappropriated their technology, we could face a number of issues, including:

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

We may need to license certain intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development and commercialization of our products. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

We are currently party to a license agreement for IV Tramadol. In the future, we may become party to licenses that are important for product development and commercialization. If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future license and funding agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product or utilize any technology that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements. Such an occurrence could materially and adversely affect the value of a product candidate being developed under any such agreement or could restrict our drug discovery activities. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patent protection for our product candidate or future product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position, particularly where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We limit disclosure of such trade secrets where possible but we also seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who do have access to them, such as our employees, our licensors, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and may unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Risks Related to Our Finances and Capital Requirements

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are an emerging growth company with a limited operating history. We have focused primarily on in-licensing and developing IV Tramadol, with the goal of supporting regulatory approval for this product candidate. We have incurred losses since our inception in February 2015.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

These losses, among other things, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future. We also do not anticipate that we will achieve profitability for a period of time after generating material revenues, if ever. If we are unable to generate revenues, we will not become profitable and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if:

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any revenue from our development stage product, and we do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in our value could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Our short operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business and prospects.

We were incorporated on February 9, 2015, and have only been conducting operations with respect to IV Tramadol since February 17, 2015. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about

TABLE OF CONTENTS

our future performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We will need to expand our capabilities to support commercial activities. We may not be successful in adding such capabilities.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any past quarterly period as an indication of future operating performance.

We do not have any products that are approved for commercial sale and therefore do not expect to generate any revenues from product sales in the foreseeable future, if ever.

We have not generated any product related revenues to date, and do not expect to generate any such revenues for at least the next several years, if at all. To obtain revenues from sales of our product candidates, we must succeed, either alone or with third parties, in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and marketing products with commercial potential. We may never succeed in these activities, and we may not generate sufficient revenues to continue our business operations or achieve profitability.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise the necessary additional capital, we may be unable to raise capital when needed, which would force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to significantly increase our spending to advance the preclinical and clinical development of IV Tramadol and launch and commercialize any additional product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, including building our own commercial organizations to address certain markets. We will require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, as well as to fund our other operating expenses and capital expenditures, and cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to raise funds to complete the development of our product.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. We may also seek collaborators for product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available. Any of these events could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Future capital requirements will also depend on the extent to which we acquire or invest in additional complementary businesses, products and technologies.

In order to carry out our business plan and implement our strategy, we anticipate that we will need to obtain additional financing from time to time and may choose to raise additional funds through strategic collaborations, licensing arrangements, public or private equity or debt financing, bank lines of credit, asset sales, government grants, or other arrangements. We cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us or at all. Furthermore, any additional equity or equity-related financing may be dilutive to our stockholders, and debt or equity financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants and significant interest costs. If we obtain funding through a strategic collaboration or licensing arrangement, we may be required to relinquish our rights to certain of our product candidates or marketing territories.

Our inability to raise capital when needed would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause our stock value to decline or require that we wind down our operations altogether.

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, grants and license and development agreements in connection with any collaborations. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We will continue to incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

We intend to become a listed and traded public company. As a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules subsequently implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the rules of any stock exchange on which we may become listed. These rules impose various requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and appropriate corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel have devoted and will continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board committees or as executive officers.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal controls for financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. As a result, we are required to periodically perform an evaluation of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of those controls, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Additionally, our independent auditors are required to perform a similar evaluation and report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. These efforts to comply with Section 404 and related regulations have required, and continue to require, the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. While we anticipate maintaining the integrity of our internal controls over financial reporting and all other aspects of Section 404, we cannot be certain that a material weakness will not be identified when we test the effectiveness of our control systems in the future. If a material weakness is identified, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources, costly litigation or a loss of public confidence in our internal controls, which could have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our securities less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. We will remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years. We may take advantage of these provisions until the earlier of (i) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the closing of this offering (ii) the last day of the fiscal year (a) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.0 billion or (b) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our equity securities that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt in any three-year period. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and being exempt from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. Additionally, as an emerging growth company, we have elected to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies. As such, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates. We cannot predict if investors will find our shares

TABLE OF CONTENTS

less attractive because we may rely on these provisions. If some investors find our shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our shares and our share price may be more volatile.

Our results of operations and liquidity needs could be materially negatively affected by market fluctuations and economic downturn.

Our results of operations could be materially negatively affected by economic conditions generally, both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Continuing concerns over inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the availability and cost of credit, the U.S. mortgage market and residential real estate market in the United States have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and the markets going forward. These factors, combined with volatile oil prices, declining business and consumer confidence and increased unemployment, have precipitated an economic recession and fears of a possible depression. Domestic and international equity markets continue to experience heightened volatility and turmoil. These events and the continuing market upheavals may have an adverse effect on us. In the event of a continuing market downturn, our results of operations could be adversely affected by those factors in many ways, including making it more difficult for us to raise funds if necessary, and our stock price may further decline.

Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

The report of our independent auditors dated March 6, 2017, on our financial statements for the periods ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, included an explanatory paragraph indicating that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The substantial doubts are based on our working capital deficit of approximately $6.2 million and $2.4 million, respectively, and our stockholders’ deficit of approximately $8.2 million and $5.2 million, respectively, and we have incurred losses of approximately $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and $5.2 million for the period from inception to December 31, 2015. Further, we expect to continue to incur significant costs in pursuit of our financing plans and product development. Our ability to continue as a going concern will be determined by our ability to raise additional capital in the form of debt or equity financing. Our financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

Risks Relating to Securities Markets and Investment in Our Stock

There is not now and there may not ever be an active market for our common stock. There are restrictions on the transferability of these securities.

There currently is no market for our common stock and, except as otherwise described herein, we have no plans to file any registration statement or otherwise attempt to create a market for the shares. Even if an active market develops for the shares, Rule 144, which provides for an exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, under certain conditions, requires, among other conditions, a holding period prior to the resale (in limited amounts) of securities acquired in a non-public offering without having to satisfy the registration requirements under the Securities Act. There can be no assurance that we will fulfill any reporting requirements in the future under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, or disseminate to the public any current financial or other information concerning us, as is required by Rule 144 as part of the conditions of its availability.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our stock may be subject to substantial price and volume fluctuations due to a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control and may prevent our stockholders from reselling our common stock at a profit.

The market prices for securities of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have historically been highly volatile, and the market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies.

The market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and may fluctuate substantially due to many factors, including:

Following completion of our proposed initial public offering, Fortress will continue to control a voting majority of our common stock, whose interests may differ from yours.

Pursuant to the terms of the Class A Preferred Stock held by Fortress, Fortress will be entitled to cast, for each share of Class A Preferred Stock held by Fortress, the number of votes that is equal to 1.1 times a fraction, the numerator of which is the sum of (A) the aggregate number of shares of outstanding common stock and (B) the whole shares of common stock into which the shares of outstanding the Class A Preferred Stock are convertible and the denominator of which is the aggregate number of shares of outstanding Class A Preferred Stock, or the Class A Preferred Stock Ratio. Thus, Fortress will at all times have voting control of us. Further, for a period of ten years from the date of the first issuance of shares of Class A Preferred Stock, the holders of record of the shares of Class A Preferred Stock (or other capital stock or securities issued upon conversion of or in exchange for the Class A Preferred Stock), exclusively and as a separate class, shall be entitled to appoint or elect the majority of our directors. This concentration of voting power may delay, prevent or deter a change in control, even when such a change may be in the best interests of all

TABLE OF CONTENTS

stockholders, could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of us or our assets, and might affect the prevailing market price of our common stock.

Fortress has the right to receive a significant grant of shares of our common stock annually, which will result in the dilution of your holdings of common stock upon each grant, which could reduce their value.

Under the terms of the Amended and Restated Founders Agreement, which became effective September 13, 2016, Fortress will receive a grant of shares of our common stock equal to 2.5% of the gross amount of any equity or debt financing. Additionally, the holders of Class A Preferred Stock, as a class, will receive an annual dividend, payable in shares of common stock in an amount equal to 2.5% of our fully-diluted outstanding capital stock as of the business day immediately prior to the date such dividend is payable. Fortress currently owns all outstanding shares of Class A Preferred Stock. These share issuances to Fortress and any other holder of Class A Preferred Stock will dilute your holdings in our common stock and, if our value has not grown proportionately over the prior year, would result in a reduction in the value of your shares. The Amended and Restated Founders Agreement has a term of 15 years and renews automatically for subsequent one-year periods unless terminated by Fortress or upon a Change in Control (as defined in the Amended and Restated Founders Agreement).

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of NASDAQ listing standards and, as a result, qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of NASDAQ listing standards. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ, including (i) the requirement that a majority of the Board of Directors consist of independent directors, (ii) the requirement that we have a nominating and corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities and (iii) the requirement that we have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities. We intend to rely on some or all of these exemptions.

Accordingly, you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ.

Investors in this offering will suffer immediate and substantial dilution of their investment.

If you purchase common stock in this offering, you will pay more for your shares than our as adjusted net tangible book value per share. Based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $      per share, the midpoint of the price range on the cover page of this prospectus, you will incur immediate and substantial dilution of $      per share, representing the difference between our assumed initial public offering price and our as adjusted net tangible book value per share. Based upon the assumed initial public offering price of $      per share, purchasers of common stock in this offering will have contributed approximately      % of the aggregate purchase price paid by all purchasers of our stock but will own only approximately      % of our common stock outstanding after this offering.

We might have received better terms from unaffiliated third parties than the terms we receive in our agreements with Fortress.

The agreements we entered into with Fortress in connection with the separation include the Management Services Agreement, or the MSA, and the Founders Agreement. While we believe the terms of these agreements are reasonable, they might not reflect terms that would have resulted

TABLE OF CONTENTS

from arm’s-length negotiations between unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements relate to, among other things, payment of a royalty on product sales and the provision of employment and transition services. We might have received better terms from third parties because, among other things, third parties might have competed with each other to win our business.

The ownership by our executive officers and some of our directors of shares of equity securities of Fortress and/or rights to acquire equity securities of Fortress might create, or appear to create, conflicts of interest.

Because of their current or former positions with Fortress, some of our executive officers and directors own shares of Fortress common stock and/or options to purchase shares of Fortress common stock. Their individual holdings of common stock and/or options to purchase common stock of Fortress may be significant compared to their total assets. Ownership by our directors and officers, after our separation, of common stock and/or options to purchase common stock of Fortress create might appear to create conflicts of interest when these directors and officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for Fortress than for us. For instance, and by way of example, if there were to be a dispute between Fortress and us regarding the calculation of the royalty fee due to Fortress under the terms of the Founders Agreement, then certain of our senior employees may have and will appear to have a conflict of interest with regard to the outcome of such dispute.

The dual roles of our officers and directors who also serve in similar roles with Fortress could create a conflict of interest and will require careful monitoring by our independent directors.

We share some directors with Fortress, and in addition, under the Management Services Agreement, we will also share some officers with Fortress. This could create conflicts of interest between the two companies in the future. While we believe that the Founders Agreement and the Management Services Agreement were negotiated by independent parties on both sides on arm’s length terms, and the fiduciary duties of both parties were thereby satisfied, in the future situations may arise under the operation of both agreements that may create a conflict of interest. We will have to be diligent to ensure that any such situation is resolved by independent parties. In particular, under the Management Services Agreement, Fortress and its affiliates are free to pursue opportunities which could potentially be of interest to us, and they are not required to notify us prior to pursuing the opportunity. Any such conflict of interest or pursuit by Fortress of a corporate opportunity independent of us could expose us to claims by our investors and creditors, and could harm our results of operations.

We may become involved in securities class action litigation that could divert management’s attention and harm our business.

The stock markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market prices for the common stock of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. These broad market fluctuations may cause the market price of our stock to decline. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. We may become involved in this type of litigation in the future. Litigation often is expensive and diverts management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect our business.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain matters discussed in this prospectus may constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from the future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “may,” “expect” and similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. Our actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation, those discussed under the captions “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in this prospectus. All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about our:

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. Moreover, except as required by law, neither we nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this prospectus to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

You should read this prospectus and the documents that we reference in this prospectus and have filed with the SEC as exhibits to the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

USE OF PROCEEDS

We estimate that the net proceeds to us from the sale of the shares of our common stock in this offering will be approximately $     million, or approximately $     million if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $     per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $     per share would increase (decrease) the net proceeds to us from this offering by approximately $     million, assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same. We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. Each increase (decrease) of      shares in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) the net proceeds to us from this offering by approximately $     million, assuming that the assumed initial public offering price remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. We do not expect that a change in the initial public offering price or the number of shares by these amounts would have a material effect on our uses of the proceeds from this offering, although it may accelerate the time at which we will need to seek additional capital.

We currently estimate that we will use the net proceeds from this offering as follows:

These expected uses represent our intentions based on our current plans and business conditions, which could change in the future as our plans and business conditions evolve. The timing and amounts of our actual expenditures will depend on several factors, including data results, progression of our clinical development programs as well as our joint collaborations, and any unforeseen cash needs.

As of the date of this prospectus, we cannot predict with absolute certainty all of the particular uses for the net proceeds to us from the offering. Accordingly, our management will have broad discretion in the application of proceeds. Pending the uses described above, we will invest the net proceeds in short-term and long-term, investment grade, interest-bearing securities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVIDEND POLICY

We have never paid cash dividends on any of our capital stock and currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. We do not intend to pay cash dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAPITALIZATION

The following table sets forth our cash and cash equivalents and capitalization as of December 31, 2016:

Our capitalization following the closing of this offering will be adjusted based on the actual initial public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing. You should read this table together with “Selected Financial Data,” our financial statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this prospectus and the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section of this prospectus.

As of December 31, 2016
(in thousands)		Actual				Pro Forma				Pro Forma as Adjusted (1)
Cash and cash equivalents		$	197			$				$
Stockholder’s Deficit			197
Preferred Stock ($0.0001 par value), 2,000,000 shares authorized
Class A Preferred Stock, 250,000 and 0 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			—
Common Stock ($0.0001 par value), 50,000,000 shares authorized
Class A Common Stock, 0 and 7,000,000 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			—
Common shares; 9,773,810 and 2,150,000 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			1
Common stock issuable, 250,595 and 228,750 shares as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively			49
Additional paid-in capital			105
Accumulated deficit			(8,403	)
Total stockholders’ deficit			(8,248	)
Total capitalization		$	197			$				$

An increase (decrease) of one million shares in the number of shares offered by us in the assumed initial public offering would increase our net tangible book value after this offering by approximately $        million, or $     per share, and decrease the dilution per share to new investors by approximately $     per share, assuming that the assumed public offering price remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

The number of shares of our common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on 10,023,810 shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2016, and excludes the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DILUTION

If you invest in our common stock in this offering, your ownership interest will be diluted to the extent of the difference between the offering price per share of our common stock and the as adjusted net tangible book value per share of our common stock immediately after the offering. Historical net tangible book value per share represents the amount of our total tangible assets less total liabilities, divided by the number of shares of our common stock outstanding.

Our historical net tangible book value as of December 31, 2016 was deficit of $8.4 million, or $(0.84) per share of our common stock.

After giving effect to our issuance and sale of $     million of shares of our common stock in this offering at the assumed initial offering price of $     per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, our as adjusted net tangible book value as of December 31, 2016, would have been $     million, or $     per share. This represents an immediate increase in as adjusted net tangible book value per share of $     to existing stockholders and immediate dilution of $     in as adjusted net tangible book value per share to new investors purchasing common stock in this offering.

Dilution per share to new investors is determined by subtracting as adjusted net tangible book value per share after this offering from the offering price per share paid by new investors. The following table illustrates this dilution on a per share basis.

Assumed Initial Offering Price Per Share						$
Historical Net Tangible Book Value Per Share as of December 30, 2016		$	(0.84	)
Increase in Net Tangible Book Value Per Share Attributable to New Investors
As Adjusted Net Tangible Book Value Per Share After this Offering
Dilution Per Share to New Investors

If the underwriters exercise the option to purchase an additional $     million of shares of our common stock in full, the as adjusted net tangible book value per share, after giving effect to the offering, would be $     per share. This represents an immediate increase in as adjusted net tangible book value of $     per share to existing stockholders and an immediate dilution in as adjusted net tangible book value of $     per share to new investors purchasing common stock in this offering. Moreover, if any additional shares are issued in connection with outstanding options or warrants, you will experience further dilution. In addition, we may choose to raise additional capital due to market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. To the extent that additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of these securities may result in further dilution to our stockholders.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $     per share would increase our net tangible book value after this offering by approximately $     million, or approximately $     per share, and the dilution per share to new investors by approximately $     per share, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. Similarly, an increase (decrease) of one million shares in the number of shares offered by us would increase our net tangible book value after this offering by approximately $     million, or $     per share, and decrease the dilution per share to new investors by approximately $     per share, assuming that the assumed public offering price remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The number of shares of our common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on 10,023,810 shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2016, and excludes the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATION

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in the following discussion and throughout this registration statement that are not historical in nature are “forward-looking statements.” You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “intend,” “believe,” and similar expressions. Although we believe the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements are inherently subject to risk and we can give no assurances that our expectations will prove to be correct. Actual results could differ from those described in this registration statement because of numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include, without limitation, those described under Item 1A “Risk Factors.” We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this registration statement or to reflect actual outcomes. Please see “Forward Looking Statements” at the beginning of this registration statement.

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and the related notes thereto and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this registration statement. We undertake no obligation to update any forward looking statements in the discussion of our financial condition and results of operations to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this registration statement or to reflect actual outcomes.

Overview

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company that acquires, licenses, develops and commercializes products principally for use in the acute/intensive care hospital setting. Our initial product candidate is IV Tramadol, for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain. In the first quarter of 2016, we completed a PK study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers and had an EOP2 meeting with the FDA. We plan to initiate a Phase 3 development program of IV Tramadol for the management of postoperative pain in 2017. Under the terms of certain agreements described herein, we have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize IV Tramadol in the United States. We plan to seek additional products to develop in the acute/intensive care hospital market in addition to IV Tramadol. To date, we have not received approval for the sale of our product candidate in any market and, therefore, have not generated any product sales from our product candidate.

We are a majority controlled subsidiary of Fortress.

Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on February 9, 2015. Our executive offices are located at 2 Gansevoort Street, 9^th Floor, New York, NY 10014. Our telephone number is (781) 652-4500, and our website is www.avenuetx.com.

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Results of Operations

Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2016 to Period Ended December 31, 2015 from February 9, 2015 (Inception)

General

At December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $8.4 million, primarily as a result of expenditures for licenses acquired, research and development and general and administrative purposes. At December 31, 2015 (from inception), we had an accumulated deficit of $5.2 million, primarily as a result of expenditures for licenses acquired. While we may in the future generate revenue from a variety of sources, including license fees, milestone payments, research and development payments in connection with strategic partnerships and/or product sales, our product candidate is in early stages of development and may never be successfully developed or commercialized. Accordingly, we expect to continue to incur substantial losses from operations for the foreseeable future, and there can be no assurance that we will ever generate significant revenues.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses primarily consist of personnel related expenses, including salaries, benefits, travel, other related expenses, stock-based compensation, payments made to third parties for license and milestone costs related to in-licensed products and technology, payments made to third party contract research organizations for preclinical and clinical studies, investigative sites for clinical trials, consultants, the cost of acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials, costs associated with regulatory filings, laboratory costs and other supplies.

For the year ended December 31, 2016, and for the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) to December 31, 2015, research and development expenses were approximately $1.3 million and $1.0 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2016, $0.9 million relates to the development of IV Tramadol, in particular the PK Study we conducted in the first half of 2016, $0.25 million relates to payments made pursuant to our Management Services Agreement with Fortress and $0.2 million for personnel costs. For the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) through December 31, 2015, $0.7 million relates to activities in connection with the development of IV Tramadol, $0.2 million relates to payments made pursuant to our Management Services Agreement with Fortress and $0.1 million for personnel costs.

For the year ended December 31, 2016, and for the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) to December 31, 2015, research and development-licenses acquired were $49,000 and $3.0 million, respectively. The $49,000 represents payment of the annual Class A Preferred Stock dividend and the $3.0 million is comprised of the upfront payment for the IV Tramadol license we acquired in 2015 and $40,000 for the 2.5% equity fee paid pursuant to the Founders’ Agreement. In 2016, this annual equity fee was replaced with the Class A Preferred Stock dividend.

We expect our research and development activities to increase as we develop our existing product candidate and potentially acquire new product candidates, reflecting increasing costs associated with the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist principally of professional fees for legal and consulting services, personnel-related costs, and other general operating expenses not otherwise included in research and development expenses.

For the year ended December 31, 2016, and for the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) to December 31, 2015, general and administrative expenses were approximately $1.0 million and $0.8 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2016, $0.25 million relates to payments made pursuant to our Management Services Agreement with Fortress, $0.6 million relates to professional fees and $0.2 million relates personnel costs. For the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) through December 31, 2015, $0.6 million was for professional fees in connection with the acquisition of the license from Revogenex as well as formation costs, $0.2 million related to payments pursuant to the Management Services Agreement with Fortress, and approximately $0.1 million related to personnel costs.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in future periods, reflecting continued and increasing costs associated with:

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We have incurred substantial operating losses since our inception and expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $8.4 million.

In February 2015, Fortress completed a private placement of a promissory note for $10 million through National Securities Corporation, or the NSC Note. National Securities Corporation, or NSC, a wholly owned subsidiary of National Holdings, Inc., acted as the sole placement agent for the NSC Note. Fortress used the proceeds from the NSC Note to acquire medical technologies, products and for activities related to the formation of its subsidiaries. The NSC Note matures 36 months after issuance, provided that during the first 24 months, Fortress can extend the maturity date by six months. No principal amount will be due for the first 24 months after issuance (or the first 30 months after issuance if the maturity date is extended). Thereafter, the NSC Note will be repaid at the rate of  1/12 of the principal amount per month for a period of 12 months. Interest on the NSC Note is 8%, payable quarterly during the first 24 months after issuance (or the first 30 months after issuance if the NSC Note is extended) and monthly during the last 12 months.

Fortress used some of the proceeds from the NSC Note to acquire our license agreement, by transferring part of this indebtedness to us. The NSC Note allows Fortress to transfer a portion of the indebtedness (and proceeds) from the NSC Note to us. On October 31, 2015, we executed an additional note (with the same terms as the NSC Note) for $3.0 million in favor of NSC, representing a transfer of indebtedness from Fortress to us. We have recorded interest expense of approximately $0.3 million and $0.2 million related to our $3 million note in interest expense (includes discount amortization) in our statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016, and for the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) to December 31, 2015, respectively.

In addition, in accordance with the terms of the NSC Note, on October 31, 2015 we issued a warrant to NSC equal to 25% of the amount of NSC Note proceeds we received from Fortress divided by the lowest price at which we next sold common stock. The warrant issued has a term of ten years and an exercise price equal to the par value of our common stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

On January 3, 2017, in accordance with the terms of the NSC Note, Fortress notified NSC of its intention to extend the maturity date of the original note by six months to September 30, 2018.

Through December 31, 2016, we funded our operations through the NSC Note and an Intercompany Working Capital Promissory Note with Fortress, or the Fortress Note. As of December 31, 2016, approximately $2.8 million was outstanding under the Fortress Note. We have recorded interest expense of $0.2 million and $0.2 million related to the Fortress Note in interest expense in our statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016, and for the period from February 9, 2015 (inception) to December 31, 2015, respectively.

We will need to raise capital in order to proceed with the Phase 3 development program for IV Tramadol in 2017, which is estimated to cost approximately $30 million. Our plans to raise capital may not be successful. These factors, among others, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

In December 2016, we sold three convertible promissory notes to investors for an aggregate of $0.2 million. The notes have an initial term of 18 months, which can be extended at the option of the holder, on one or more occasions, for up to 180 days and accrue simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum for the first 12 months and 8% per annum simple interest thereafter. The notes are guaranteed by Fortress. The outstanding principal and interest of the notes automatically converts into the type of equity securities sold by us in the next sale of equity securities in which we realize aggregate gross cash proceeds of at least $10.0 million (before commissions or other expenses and excluding conversion of the notes) at a conversion price equal to the lesser of (a) the lowest price per share at which our equity securities are sold in such sale less a 33% discount and (b) a per share price based on a pre-offering valuation of $30.0 million divided by the number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis.

Upon the closing of these three promissory notes in December 2016, we realized net proceeds of $142,000 after paying WestPark Capital, Inc., the placement agent, placement agent fees of $30,000 and escrow fees of $4,000 and paying approximately $14,000 in legal fees. Additionally, WestPark Capital, Inc. received a warrant, or the WestPark Warrant, to purchase the number of shares of our common stock equal to $10,000 divided by the price per share at which any note sold to investors first converts into our common stock. The WestPark Warrant has a ten-year term and has a per share exercise price equal to the price per share at which any note sold to investors first converts into our common stock.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, No. 2017-04, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, or ASU 2017-04, which eliminates the second step of the previous FASB guidance for testing goodwill for impairment and is intended to reduce cost and complexity of goodwill impairment testing. The amendments in this ASU modify the concept of impairment from the condition that exists when the carrying amount of goodwill exceeds its implied fair value to the condition that exists when the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value. After determining if the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the entity should take an impairment charge of the same amount to the goodwill for that reporting unit, not to exceed the total goodwill amount for that reporting unit. This eliminates the second step of calculating the implied fair value of goodwill by assigning the fair value of a reporting unit to all of its assets and liabilities as if that reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination. ASU 2017-04 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting the new guidance on our financial statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In January 2017, FASB issued ASU 2017-01, “Business Combinations (Topic 805) Clarifying the Definition of a Business.” The amendments in this update is to clarify the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. The definition of a business affects many areas of accounting including acquisitions, disposals, goodwill, and consolidation. The guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those periods. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows — Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which addresses eight specific cash flow issues with the objective of reducing the existing diversity in practice in how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of this new pronouncement on our statements of cash flows.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customer, or ASU 2016-10. The new guidance is an update to ASC 606 and provides clarity on identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation. For public companies, ASU 2016-10 is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2016. We are currently evaluating the impact that ASU 2016-10 will have on our financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09 Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718), Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, or ASU 2016-09. Under ASU 2016-09, companies will no longer record excess tax benefits and certain tax deficiencies in additional paid-in capital, or APIC. Instead, they will record all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement and the APIC pools will be eliminated. In addition, ASU 2016-09 eliminates the requirement that excess tax benefits be realized before companies can recognize them. ASU 2016-09 also requires companies to present excess tax benefits as an operating activity on the statement of cash flows rather than as a financing activity. Furthermore, ASU 2016-09 will increase the amount an employer can withhold to cover income taxes on awards and still qualify for the exception to liability classification for shares used to satisfy the employer’s statutory income tax withholding obligation. An employer with a statutory income tax withholding obligation will now be allowed to withhold shares with a fair value up to the amount of taxes owed using the maximum statutory tax rate in the employee’s applicable jurisdiction(s). ASU 2016-09 requires a company to classify the cash paid to a tax authority when shares are withheld to satisfy its statutory income tax withholding obligation as a financing activity on the statement of cash flows. Under current GAAP, it was not specified how these cash flows should be classified. In addition, companies will now have to elect whether to account for forfeitures on share-based payments by (1) recognizing forfeitures of awards as they occur or (2) estimating the number of awards expected to be forfeited and adjusting the estimate when it is likely to change, as is currently required. The amendments of this ASU are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted but all of the guidance must be adopted in the same period. We are currently assessing the impact the adoption of ASU 2016-09 will have on our financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), or ASU 2016-02, which supersedes FASB Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic 840, Leases (Topic 840) and provides principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both lessees and lessors. The new standard requires lessees to apply a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not the lease is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. This classification will determine whether lease expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease, respectively. A lessee is also required to record a right-of-use asset and a lease

TABLE OF CONTENTS

liability for all leases with a term of greater than twelve months regardless of classification. Leases with a term of twelve months or less will be accounted for similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted upon issuance. We are currently evaluating the method of adoption and the impact of adopting ASU 2016-02 on our financial statements. When adopted, we do not expect this guidance to have a material impact on our financial statements.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, or ASU 2016-01. ASU 2016-01 requires equity investments to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income; simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment; eliminates the requirement for public business entities to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet; requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments; requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial assets on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements and clarifies that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. ASU 2016-01 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the impact that ASU 2016-01 will have on our balance sheet or financial statement disclosures. When adopted, we do not expect this guidance to have a material impact on our financial statements.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, or ASU 2015-17. ASU 2015-17 requires that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. ASU 2015-17 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the impact that ASU 2015-17 will have on our balance sheet or financial statement disclosures. When adopted, we do not expect this guidance to have a material impact on our financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, or ASU 2015-03, which requires debt issuance costs to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying value of the associated debt liability, consistent with the presentation of a debt discount. ASU 2015-03 is effective for the interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. We adopted ASU 2015-03 and such adoption resulted in debt issuance costs presented as an offset against notes payable, long-term, in the accompanying balance sheet.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern, or ASU 2014-15, which defines management’s responsibility to assess an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, and to provide related footnote disclosures if there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual reporting periods ending after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted. We adopted ASU 2014-15 in the fourth quarter of 2016, and its adoption did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table reflects a summary of our estimates of future material contractual obligations as of December 31, 2016. Future events could cause actual payments to differ from these estimates.

		Total				Less than 1 year				1 – 3 years				3 – 5 years				More than 5 years
Contractual obligations:
NSC notes		$	3,000,000			$	1,000,000				2,000,000				—				—
Convertible notes			200,000				—				200,000				—				—
License acquired			4,000,000				—				1,000,000				3,000,000				—
Total contractual obligations		$	7,200,000			$	1,000,000				3,200,000				3,000,000				—

As of December 31, 2016, we have $7.2 million in contracted obligations, consisting of a $3.0 million note to NSC, $0.2 million of convertible notes and $4.0 million of milestone payments due to Revogenex in connection with the achievement of certain development milestones.

Qualitative and Quantitative Disclosures About Market Risk

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates. We had cash and cash equivalents of $14,000 as of December 31, 2015 and $0.2 million as of December 31, 2016, consisting of cash and money market funds. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest rate sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates, particularly because our investments are in short-term securities. Our available for sale securities are subject to interest rate risk and will fall in value if market interest rates increase. Due to the short-term duration of our investment portfolio and the low risk profile of our investments, an immediate 100 basis point change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our portfolio.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We are not party to any off-balance sheet transactions. We have no guarantees or obligations other than those which arise out of normal business operations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BUSINESS

Overview

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of an intravenous, or IV, formulation of tramadol HCl, or IV Tramadol, for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain. Tramadol is a synthetic dual-acting opioid with a well-established efficacy and safety profile, and has been used throughout the world for more than 30 years, accumulating an abundance of available clinical data. Oral tramadol is currently approved and marketed in the United States for moderate to moderately severe pain in adults, and physicians are already familiar with the oral dosage of the drug. Parenteral tramadol is approved and used for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain throughout much of the world, but there is no parenteral formulation currently available in the United States. We anticipate that the introduction of an intravenous formulation in the United States will address the current market need presented by the shortcomings of opioids and other analgesics currently used in the postoperative setting. We have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize IV Tramadol in the United States and we also plan to seek additional products to develop in the acute/intensive care hospital market in addition to IV Tramadol.

In 2016, we completed a pharmacokinetics, or PK, study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers as well as an End-of-Phase 2, or EOP2, meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA. We plan to initiate a Phase 3 development program of IV Tramadol for the management of postoperative pain in 2017. We intend to conduct two pivotal Phase 3 trials for IV Tramadol. We plan to initiate the first Phase 3 trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy in the third quarter of 2017. We anticipate that we will have topline data as early as the second quarter of 2018. We plan to initiate the second Phase 3 trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominoplasty in the third quarter of 2018, upon successful completion of the bunionectomy study. Based on the enrollment pace of similar studies, we anticipate that we will have topline data from this second Phase 3 trial as early as mid-2019. We also plan to conduct an open-label safety study, which will run concurrently with the two Phase 3 trials. If these studies are successful, we plan to submit a new drug application, or an NDA, for IV Tramadol to treat moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, by the end of 2019.

Our Strategy

Our primary objective is to establish IV Tramadol as an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options for the management of postoperative pain. The key elements of our strategy include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The U.S. Postoperative Pain Market

We are currently focused on developing our proprietary product candidate, IV Tramadol, for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain. Even though the postoperative pain market is entrenched with low cost, generic pain relievers, we believe that there still remains a significant unmet medical need for safer and better-tolerated painkillers, which are also referred to as analgesics.

According to Decision Resources’ Acute Pain Report of October 2014, or the 2014 Pain Report, sales of analgesics delivered via parenteral routes (IV, subcutaneous, and intramuscular injections) for the management of acute pain totaled approximately $965 million in the United States in 2013. According to the 2014 Pain Report, there were over ten million select common inpatient procedures performed, all of which likely required postoperative pain management, in the United States in 2013. According to IMS Health, injectable analgesics sold approximately $1 billion in the United States in 2015.

The major goal in the management of postoperative pain is minimizing the dose of medications to lessen side effects while still providing adequate pain relief for analgesia. This is best accomplished with multimodal and preemptive analgesia. An effective pain relief program should be individualized for the particular patient, operation, and circumstances. In clinical practice, as there is no standard set of guidelines to manage postoperative pain, hospitals and even hospital units have their own practice guidelines that are often based on physicians’ prescribing practices. These local guidelines are rooted in physician experience as it relates to anticipated severity of pain due to a particular surgical procedure, and are often modified with consideration to things like staffing limitations, availability of specific drugs and/or formulations, access to patient controlled analgesia, or PCA, systems, and formulary restrictions. Thus, treatment regimens vary widely from hospital to hospital, physician to physician and patient to patient.

Understanding the range of available interventions and considering the type of surgery is essential to safe and effective pain management. The general consensus among pain management practitioners is that use of more than one modality (i.e., molecules with different mechanisms or with different routes of administration) is optimal for successful postoperative pain management. The most commonly prescribed agents in the immediate postoperative pain market are typically acetaminophen, or APAP, NSAIDS, and opioid analgesics. APAP and NSAIDs are not sufficiently effective as the sole agent for pain management after major surgery in most patients. However, when used in conjunction with opioids, APAP and NSAIDs offer substantial benefits as the quality of analgesia is often improved or enhanced due to their differentiated mechanism of action. Nevertheless, the substantial side effects associated with these agents represent an important concern for patients and physicians to address. NSAIDS in particular have their own serious side

TABLE OF CONTENTS

effects, including increased post-surgery bleeding, peptic ulcer disease and renal impairment, and is associated with hepatic side effects.

Traditional opioids offer safe and effective postoperative pain control and can be used in combination with other agents and techniques. However, the side effects of opioids, such as morphine, include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression. Physical dependence and addiction are clinical concerns that may prevent proper prescribing and, in turn, inadequate pain management. Less common side effects include delayed gastric emptying, hyperalgesia, immunologic and hormonal dysfunction, muscle rigidity, and myoclonus.

Therefore, there is still unmet medical need in the post-surgical setting. We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, can fill this unmet need. If approved for its intended indication, we believe that IV Tramadol will be an opioid effective in treating moderate to moderately severe pain without some of the side effects often seen with traditional opioids.

The table below summarizes the available intravenous analgesic options in postoperative pain management currently available in the United States.

Available Classes		Pain Levels		Common Limitations & Contraindications
IV narcotics		Moderate to severe		Strong sedation
				Respiratory depression
				Constipation
				Risk of dependence
IV NSAIDS		Mild to moderately severe		Post-op bleeding risk
				GI side effects
				Renal impairment
IV acetaminophen		Mild to moderate		Hepatic impairment

Our Product Candidate

Tramadol, a synthetic dual-acting opioid, is a centrally acting analgesic with weak opioid agonist properties. It also works via the inhibition of serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake and blocking nociceptive impulses at the spinal level. These opioid and non-opioid modes of action are synergistic, essentially providing “multimodal therapy” with the use of a single drug. Tramadol is also commonly combined with APAP or NSAIDS in clinical practice. Tramadol has a well-established efficacy and safety profile and has been used throughout the world for more than 30 years. In the United States, tramadol is approved and marketed as an oral agent for moderate to moderately severe pain in adults. Tramadol was first approved in the United States in 1995, under the trade name Ultram® immediate release tablet (Ortho-McNeil-Janssen). Ultracet®, a combination product containing tramadol and acetaminophen, is also marketed in the United States (Ortho-McNeil-Janssen). According to Symphony Health Solutions, over 40 million scripts for tramadol and tramadol-containing drugs have been prescribed annually in the United States since 2012.

Tramadol use is associated with fewer side effects compared with the use of other opioids for pain management. Tramadol causes less respiratory depression, has minimal effect on the body’s hemodynamic function, and does not impair immune function. Tramadol also causes minimal gastrointestinal adverse effects, including reduced constipation compared to other opioids. The most common side effects are nausea and dizziness. Importantly, tramadol has low potential for abuse and addiction and is currently classified by the DEA as a Schedule IV controlled substance. For comparison, other opioids which have a high potential for abuse, including meperidine, morphine, hydromorphone and oxycodone, are all classified as Schedule II controlled substances.

Oral tramadol was generally well tolerated in clinical trials evaluating its analgesic safety and efficacy. It has demonstrated utility in patients with a risk of poor cardiopulmonary function, after surgery of the thorax or upper abdomen and when non-opioid analgesics are contraindicated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The efficacy of oral and parenteral tramadol in relieving moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain associated with surgery was demonstrated in several comparative human clinical trials.

The clinical trials summarized below show that the overall analgesic efficacy of parenteral tramadol was similar to that of morphine and meperidine and comparable or superior to that of pentazocine:

Advantages of IV Tramadol

Parenteral tramadol is approved and used for the management of moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain throughout much of the world. Parenteral formulations include IV, intramuscular, or IM, and subcutaneous, or SC, formulations. Based on our review of IMS Health data from 2014 to 2016, we believe that parenteral tramadol accounts for approximately 10% of the total IV analgesics used in Europe. There is no parenteral formulation currently approved in the United States.

We believe that the introduction of an IV formulation of tramadol in the United States will address many of the shortcomings of opioids, APAP and NSAIDs currently used in the postoperative setting.

We plan to administer IV Tramadol over approximately 15 minutes in our Phase 3 trials. We believe that our method of administration of IV Tramadol may provide significant benefits such as reduced side effects, compared to previously approved methods of administration of IV Tramadol in Europe, which is typically accomplished via a slow push over 2 to 3 minutes. In addition, we believe our IV Tramadol dosing regimen produces a similar Cmax (maximal blood level) and AUC (overall systemic exposure) to those of oral tramadol at steady state, which ensures an easy transition from IV to oral therapy in the post-surgical setting.

Based on the trials done in Europe and on the data generated with oral tramadol, we believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will be an attractive option for physicians who treat postoperative pain, due to the following attributes:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will be a useful and effective tool in the management of acute postoperative pain. Its potential advantages compared to current standard-of-care agents, along with the known efficacy, safety and tolerability profile for oral tramadol support the use of IV Tramadol in this setting. We believe that the risks associated with the use of IV Tramadol will be benign compared to other opioids, and consistent with that of the currently marketed oral tramadol products. Consequently, with the industry trend toward multimodal therapy and away from Schedule II narcotics, we believe that, if approved, IV Tramadol’s unique profile could position it to become an invaluable part of a treating physician’s repertoire of available pharmaceutical options in the management of postoperative pain.

In 2016 we conducted a survey of 30 U.S. anesthesiologists regarding their impression of IV Tramadol. We believe that the feedback was favorable. The table below summarizes the responses from the doctors in this survey.

Overall Impression
Favorable initial impression of tramadol as a potential new IV analgesic			77	%

Patients taking		Switch to IV tramadol				Add IV tramadol
IV morphine			40	%			41	%
IV NSAIDS			26	%			37	%
IV acetaminophen			24	%			35	%

Clinical Development History

Revogenex completed multiple nonclinical PK and toxicology studies in dogs, a Phase 1 dose proportionality study and a thorough QT/QTc (TQT) study of IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers, or the TQT Study. The dose proportionality study was designed to compare maximum exposure and cumulative exposures of IV Tramadol to that of oral tramadol, and to assess the dose proportionality of IV Tramadol in healthy adult volunteers. The TQT Study was done to evaluate whether IV Tramadol has the potential to affect the “corrected QT interval”, or QTc, in healthy volunteers. The QTc represents electrical depolarization and repolarization of the heart ventricles. A lengthened QTc is a marker for the potential of ventricular arrhythmias. The results of these studies are consistent with tramadol’s known toxicology profile, pharmacokinetics and pharmacology.

PK Study for IV Tramadol

In general, Phase 2 clinical trials include initial proof-of-concept efficacy studies, dose-finding studies, and initial safety assessments in the target (i.e., to-be-treated) population. We did not conduct Phase 2 clinical trials for IV Tramadol because tramadol is a known analgesic, and oral tramadol is labeled for “moderate to moderately severe pain” in the United States. Instead, we completed pharmacokinetic simulations and conducted a pharmacokinetic and safety study in healthy volunteers, in order to select a Phase 3 dose and dosing regimen designed to achieve

TABLE OF CONTENTS

exposure to tramadol similar to that provided by oral tramadol. In 2016, we completed a PK study for IV Tramadol in healthy volunteers. A PK study generally involves dosing an experimental medicine in healthy volunteers and taking a series of blood measurements from the study participants to understand how the body handles the drug. A PK study provides information on important parameters such as systemic exposure, maximal and minimal levels of drug concentration in the blood and their time courses. The PK study we conducted was used to select a dose and dosing regimen of IV Tramadol that achieves similar exposure to that provided by oral tramadol at steady state.

The PK study was designed as a three-way cross over study in 18 healthy volunteers. Each subject in the study served as his/her own control and received oral tramadol as well as two different doses of IV Tramadol. Based on the results of the PK study, we have decided to use a 50 mg dose in our pivotal Phase 3 program. The specifics of the dosing regimen have not been disclosed, as they are the subject of a new patent application.

Our Clinical Development Strategy for IV Tramadol

At our EOP2 meeting with FDA, we discussed Phase 3 program requirements for IV Tramadol and confirmed the key elements of the Phase 3 program design. We plan to conduct two pivotal Phase 3 trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV Tramadol, and one additional safety study. All three trials will enroll patients who require IV analgesia following surgery. We anticipate that approximately 1,000 patients will be enrolled in the Phase 3 program. We believe that the design of our Phase 3 program is consistent with the design of Phase 3 programs for other analgesics being developed by Trevena, Inc., Cara Therapeutics, Inc., and Recro Pharma, Inc.

Postoperative pain following bunionectomy (orthopedic surgery model).  The first Phase 3 trial will be conducted in patients undergoing bunionectomy surgery, which is considered an orthopedic surgical model. Approximately 405 patients will be randomized 1:1:1 to one of two doses of IV Tramadol, or placebo, for 48 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint is Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 48 hours (SPID 48), which is a measure of the overall effectiveness of the drug in reducing pain intensity during the 48-hour period. We plan to initiate this trial in the third quarter of 2017. Based on the enrollment pace of similar clinical trials, we anticipate that we may have topline data as early as the second quarter of 2018.

Postoperative pain following abdominoplasty (soft tissue model).  The second Phase 3 safety and efficacy trial will be conducted in patients undergoing abdominoplasty surgery, which is considered a soft-tissue surgical model. Approximately 360 patients will be randomized 3:3:2 to IV Tramadol, placebo or a standard-of-care comparator arm. The primary efficacy endpoint is Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 24 hours (SPID 24). We plan to initiate this trial in the third quarter of 2018 upon the completion of the bunionectomy study. Based on the enrollment pace of similar trials, we anticipate that we may have topline data to be reported as early as mid-2019.

Open-label safety study.  We plan to initiate the safety study in the second half of 2017, and will run this study concurrently with the two Phase 3 trials. Approximately 250 patients will be enrolled in the safety study, which has an open label, single arm design. We anticipate that we will complete this study as early as mid-2019.

If these trials are successful, we plan to submit an NDA for the FDA’s review and approval for IV Tramadol to treat moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA by the end of 2019.

License Agreement with Revogenex Ireland Ltd.

Effective as of February 17, 2015, Fortress obtained a worldwide (with the exception of Central America and South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV Tramadol HCl injections) exclusive license to make, market and sell IV Tramadol pursuant to an agreement with Revogenex, a privately held company in Dublin, Ireland, or the License Agreement. Under the terms of the License Agreement, Fortress paid Revogenex an up-front licensing fee of $2.0 million upon execution and an additional $1.0 million on June 17, 2015; two additional milestones totaling

TABLE OF CONTENTS

$4.0 million are due upon the completion of certain development goals. Additional high single-digit to low double-digit royalty payments on net sales of licensed products are due. Royalties will be paid on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the expiration in each country of the valid patent claim. In return, Fortress obtained the exclusive worldwide rights to U.S. Patent No. 8,895,622 “Intravenous Administration of Tramadol” issued on November 25, 2014, or the ‘622 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,561,195 issued on February 7, 2017, or the ‘195 Patent, and U.S. Patent No. 9,566,253 issued on February 14, 2017, or the ‘253 Patent (with the exception of Central America and South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV Tramadol HCl injections). Additionally, Fortress acquired the rights to an open U.S. Investigational New Drug Application pertaining to IV Tramadol, as well as all supporting documentation and relevant correspondence with the FDA. Further, under the License Agreement, Fortress assumed the rights and obligations of Revogenex under its current manufacturing agreement with Z.F. Polpharma S.A, or the Manufacturing Agreement. Fortress transferred all its rights and obligations under the License Agreement and the Manufacturing Agreement to us pursuant to an Asset Transfer Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015.

The License Agreement will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last licensed patent right, unless the agreement is earlier terminated. In addition to standard early termination provisions, the License Agreement may also be terminated early by: (i) Revogenex if the NDA has not been filed by August 17, 2019, and we have failed to use commercially reasonable efforts to carry out all of the product development, (ii) Revogenex if the FDA does not issue an approval or otherwise issues a “not approvable” notice for the NDA within 15 months after the NDA has been filed with the FDA, although this termination right will be tolled if we are using commercial reasonable efforts in our negotiations with the FDA for approval and if we receive a “not approvable” notice, we will have a 15 month period to correct any issues and re-submit the NDA for approval, (iii) us if we reasonably determine prior to NDA approval that the development of IV Tramadol is not economically viable, or (iv) either Revogenex or us (provided we are using or have used commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize IV Tramadol) if, after the third anniversary date of the commercial launch, we fail to achieve annual net sales with respect to IV Tramadol of at least $20 million in any given calendar year, with certain exceptions.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis of proprietary products. We face competition and potential competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. In addition, companies that are active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Many of our competitors have significantly greater capital resources, larger research and development staffs and facilities and greater experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing and marketing than we do. These organizations also compete with us to recruit qualified personnel, attract partners for joint ventures or other collaborations, and license technologies that are competitive with ours. To compete successfully in this industry we must identify novel and unique drugs or methods of treatment and then complete the development of those drugs as treatments before our competitors do so.

We believe that IV Tramadol, if approved, will compete with a number of opioid and non-opioid drugs that are currently available for the management of acute pain or in development. The most commonly used opioids in the postoperative and acute pain settings are morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl. The non-opioid drugs used in this setting include Ofirmev (IV acetaminophen) and IV formulations of NSAIDs such as Dyloject (diclofenac), Toradol (ketorolac), and Caldolor (ibuprofen). In addition, we also expect to compete with agents such as Exparel, a liposome injection of bupivacaine indicated for administration into the surgical site to produce postsurgical analgesia.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition to approved products, there are a number of product candidates in development for the management of acute pain. The late-stage pain development pipeline is replete with reformulations and fixed-dose combination products of already available therapies. Among specific drug classes, opioid analgesics and NSAIDs represent the greatest number of agents in development. Most investigational opioids that have reached the later stages of clinical development are new formulations of already marketed opioids. Likewise, investigational NSAIDs — mostly lower dose injectable reformulations of already approved compounds — are another significant area of late-stage drug development in the postoperative pain space. There are also several agents with novel mechanisms in clinical development, such as CR845 (Cara Therapeutics, Inc.) and TRV130 (Trevena, Inc.).

Intellectual Property and Patents

General

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our proprietary technologies, including methods of treatment, to preserve our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents in the United States.

Patents and other proprietary rights are crucial to the development of our business. We will be able to protect our proprietary technologies from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary rights are covered by valid and enforceable patents, supported by regulatory exclusivity or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. We have several patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, but we cannot guarantee the scope of protection of the issued patents, or that such patents will survive a validity or enforceability challenge, or that any of the pending patent applications will issue as patents.

Generally, patent applications in the United States are maintained in secrecy for a period of 18 months or more. The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Therefore, we cannot predict the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents, or their enforceability. To date, there has been no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents. Third parties or competitors may challenge or circumvent our patents or patent applications, if issued. If our competitors prepare and file patent applications in the United States that claim technology also claimed by us, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that before we commercialize any of our products, any related patent may expire or remain in existence for only a short period following commercialization, thus reducing any advantage of the patent. However, the life of a patent covering a product that has been subject to regulatory approval may have the ability be extended through the patent restoration program, although any such extension could still be minimal.

If a patent is issued to a third party containing one or more preclusive or conflicting claims, and those claims are ultimately determined to be valid and enforceable, we may be required to obtain a license under such patent or to develop or obtain alternative technology, neither of which may be possible. In the event of litigation involving a third party claim, an adverse outcome in the litigation could subject us to significant liabilities to such third party, require us to seek a license for the disputed rights from such third party, and/or require us to cease use of the technology. Moreover, our breach of an existing license or failure to obtain a license to technology required to commercialize our products may seriously harm our business. We also may need to commence litigation to enforce any patents issued to us or to determine the scope and validity of third party proprietary rights. Litigation would involve substantial costs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IV Tramadol

Pursuant to the License Agreement described below, we have exclusive, worldwide commercialization rights to the ‘622 Patent. The ‘622 Patent is directed to and claims methods of: treating pain by administering a therapeutically effective dose of tramadol intravenously over a time period from 10 minutes to about 45 minutes (i.e., the rate of IV Tramadol administration); administration over that time period for treating pain in humans by intravenously administering tramadol in solution at a range of concentrations; a method for treating acute pain in humans by administering IV Tramadol over 10 to 30 minutes; a method of treating acute postoperative pain by administering tramadol to a human patient intra-operatively at wound closure, or from first demand of analgesia postoperatively intravenously over a time period from 10 to 30 minutes; administering further doses of IV Tramadol at two to six hour time intervals for at least 48 hours post-surgery and administering an intravenous opioid analgesic which is not tramadol to the patient to further treat the patient’s pain. Further claims of the ‘622 patent are directed to the 50 mg tramadol dose. These methods of treatment may provide significant benefits (e.g., reduced side effects) over previously approved methods of administration of IV Tramadol, in which the dose was typically accomplished over a two to three minute period. Additional claims of the ‘622 Patent focus on the intravenous administration of tramadol over 15 (±2) minutes, which represents the preferred method of administration that we will be pursuing in obtaining approval of our product through the FDA. The ‘622 Patent further describes and claims pharmacokinetic properties of our proprietary method of treatment (e.g., Tmax, Cmax and AUC), which are different from the previously achieved pharmacokinetics of prior IV Tramadol formulations, such as Tramal® solution for injection (available outside the U.S.). This patent is scheduled to expire on April 12, 2032 (absent possible patent term extensions).

In view of additional prior art discovered after the issuance of the ‘622 Patent, we have focused efforts on obtaining further patent coverage for the technology. Pursuant to the License Agreement, we have exclusive, worldwide commercialization rights to two all continuation patent filings of the ‘622 Patent. As a first step, we have prosecuted further claims in two continuation patent applications of the ‘622 patent in which all prior art which we were uncovered in extensive searches was brought to the attention of the USPTO. The goal was to obtain further patent claims which patentably differentiate over such prior art. To date, our efforts have resulted in the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,195 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘195 Patent” which was issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/550,279 on February 7, 2017) and U.S. Patent 9,566,253 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘253 Patent” which was issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/713,775 on February 14, 2017), both of which are entitled “Intravenous Administration of Tramadol” and both of which contain the same disclosure (specification) as that of the ‘622 Patent. The ‘195 and ‘253 patents are scheduled to expire on the same day as the expiration of the ‘622 patent (April 12, 2032; absent possible patent term extensions).

The ‘253 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain in a human patient by a dose of about 50 mg of IV Tramadol over a time period from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, and administering further doses of tramadol at two to six hour time intervals (each dose being administered intravenously over the same time period).

The ‘195 patent includes claims directed to a method of treating moderate to severe acute pain by administering to a human patient a dose of about 50 mg of IV Tramadol over 10 to 20 minutes, and administering further doses of IV Tramadol at two to six hour time intervals to treat pain in said patient, (each dose administered over 10 to 20 minutes), such that the Cmax does not exceed the Cmax of 100 mg oral tramadol. The term Cmax refers to the maximum plasma concentration of tramadol achieved during a dosing interval. The claims of the ‘195 patent therefore further focus on a goal of the technology — that the blood plasma levels of tramadol resulting from our 50 mg intravenous dose to a patient would not be significantly greater than the blood plasma level of the blood plasma levels of tramadol that are already routinely experienced by patients in the United States who are administered an oral dose of 100 mg tramadol. Tramadol hydrochloride is approved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

in the United States for oral administration in an amount from 50 to 100 mg administered every four to six hours, not to exceed 400 mg/day.

The ‘253 and ‘195 patents include further claims to the treatment method, including also administering one or more doses of an IV opioid analgesic that is not tramadol as rescue medicine to the patient to treat breakthrough pain. The claims are further directed to the use of the treatment method for postoperative pain, and claims are also directed to the treatment method resulting in a reduction in a side-effect associated with tramadol therapy selected from nausea, vomiting, or both.

We believe that the administration of a 50 mg IV Tramadol dose over the prolonged time interval is efficacious and also may advantageously lead to a lower incidence of side effects and increased drug tolerability. Additionally, we believe that the claims of both the ‘253 and ‘195 patents’ patentably differentiate over all prior art that we are aware of and which was made of record with the USPTO.

Additionally, the License Agreement grants us the rights to a further patent filing to an IV Tramadol dosing regimen which was recently filed with the USPTO and granted prioritized examination. This new patent application (accorded U.S. Application Serial No. 15/163,111; hereinafter referred to as “the ‘111 application”) describes and claims a dosing regimen in which our IV Tramadol product is dosed to a human patient(s) in a manner such that the plasma levels obtained (including but not limited to Cmax and AUC) are very similar to treatment with a 100 mg oral dose of tramadol hydrochloride to a human patient(s) every six hours at steady state. It is believed that this dosing regimen may provide advantages over the commercially available oral doing regimen, and further allows the patient to be stepped down from the IV Tramadol dosing regimen to an oral dosing regimen with less concern about deleterious effects which might occur from a switch from IV to oral analgesic medicine (e.g., as would be the case where the switch to an oral version of the drug provides a much different Cmax and AUC than the IV dose provides at steady state). This new dosing regimen is the result of considerable experimentation by us, and a prior art search has not revealed any similar dosing regimen being used or published with respect to IV Tramadol infusions.

The ‘111 application is now under active review by the USPTO. We believe that the subject matter of this new patent application is new and unobvious and are hopeful of obtaining a new U.S. patent based on this invention sometime in 2017. If granted, we believe that the patent term of a patent granted from this application may extend to at least May 24, 2036 (absent possible patent term extensions).

In sum, we believe that our patent filings will prevent third parties from marketing a generic version of our product without infringing claims of the patent(s) we are seeking. Further, we have conducted clearance searches of U.S. issued and foreign patents, and have not identified any bars to the commercialization of our tramadol technology.

Other Intellectual Property Rights

We depend upon trademarks, trade secrets, and continuing technological advances to develop and maintain our competitive position. We also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. This knowledge and experience we call “know-how.” To help protect our proprietary know-how which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all employees, scientific advisors, consultants, collaborators and other contractors, upon commencement of a relationship with us, to enter into confidentiality agreements, which prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, in the case of parties other than our research and development collaborators, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and to grant us ownership of technologies that

TABLE OF CONTENTS

are developed in connection with their relationship with us. These agreements may not, however, provide protection for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized disclosure of such information.

Supply and Manufacturing

The chemical name for tramadol hydrochloride is cis-2-[(dimethyl amino) methyl]-1-(3-methyoxyphenyl) cyclohexanol hydrochloride. Unless otherwise specified, the term tramadol refers to the racemic mixture of the (±) cis isomers. IV Tramadol (Tramadol Hydrochloride Injection) is a sterile solution formulation of tramadol HCl 50 mg/1 mL, for IV administration. Each unit of IV Tramadol consists of glass ampoules of 50 mg of tramadol HCl and sodium acetate as buffering agent in 1 mL of water for injection or 100 mg of tramadol HCl and sodium acetate as buffering agent in 2 mL of water for injection. The final drug product is stable at room temperature.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of IV Tramadol, nor do we have plans to develop or own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. Currently, we have one manufacturer to provide us clinical and commercial supply of IV Tramadol in accordance with cGMP. We also plan to qualify a backup manufacturer. We will be obligated to purchase a minimum amount of final packaged drug product from our current manufacturer over the course of five years commencing upon the approval of our NDA for IV Tramadol. We will pay a fixed per dose unit fee to our current manufacturer in addition to a low single digit royalty on net sales revenue.

We and our manufacturer are and will be subject to extensive government regulation in connection with the manufacture of any pharmaceutical product, including ongoing periodic and unannounced inspections by the FDA, the DEA and corresponding state, European and other foreign agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMPs and other applicable state, federal and foreign regulations. We do not have control over third party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards, other than through contractual obligations and audit oversight. If they are deemed out of compliance with cGMPs, product recalls could result, inventory could be destroyed, production could be stopped and supplies could be delayed or otherwise disrupted.

If we need to change manufacturers after commercialization, the FDA and some corresponding foreign regulatory agencies must approve these new manufacturers in advance, which will involve testing and additional inspections to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other FDA regulations and standards and may require significant lead times and delay. Furthermore, switching manufacturers may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited. It may be difficult or impossible for us to find a replacement manufacturer quickly or on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

Government and Industry Regulations

General

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approval and maintaining subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during product development, the approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, voluntary product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, consent decrees, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil and criminal penalties. Any agency or

TABLE OF CONTENTS

judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us If we fail to manufacture any of our product candidates in sufficient quantities and at acceptable quality and pricing levels, or fail to obtain adequate DEA quotas for controlled substances, or to fully comply with cGMP regulations, we may face delays in the commercialization of this product candidate or be unable to meet market demand, and may be unable to generate potential revenues.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. We intend to submit our NDAs under the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway. Development and approval of drugs generally involves the following:

The nonclinical testing, clinical trials and review process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. The data required to support an NDA are generated in two distinct developmental stages: nonclinical and clinical. The nonclinical development stage generally involves synthesizing the active component, developing the formulation and control procedures and determining the manufacturing process, as well as carrying out non-human toxicology, pharmacology and drug metabolism studies in the laboratory, which may support subsequent clinical testing in humans. In the case of documentation to support a 505(b)(2) NDA, this nonclinical data may be referenced in literature or the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a listed drug. The sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers and patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria

TABLE OF CONTENTS

and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB for each institution where the trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap.

By following the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, the applicant may reduce some of the burdens of developing a full clinical program by relying on investigations not conducted by the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, such as prior investigations involving the listed drug. In such cases, some clinical trials may not be required or may be otherwise limited.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the management of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Before approval, progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important rate increase of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or the use of the drug raises any safety concerns. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose specified clinical trial information, which is publicly available at

TABLE OF CONTENTS

www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved. However, there are evolving rules and increasing requirements for publication of all trial-related information, and it is possible that data and other information from trials involving drugs that never garner approval could require disclosure in the future.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing it in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate, and, among other things, a drug manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

NDA and FDA Review Process

The results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including extensive information on manufacturing and drug composition and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a drug is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMPs to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be legally marketed in the United States.

Under the PDUFA as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fee schedule, effective through September 30, 2016, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, is $2,374,200. Clinical data, as interpreted by the FDA to assess fees under PDUFA, include (1) study reports or literature reports of what are explicitly or implicitly represented by the applicant to be adequate and well-controlled trials for safety or effectiveness or (2) reports of comparative activity (other than bioequivalence and bioavailability studies), immunogenicity, or efficacy, where those reports are necessary to support a claim of comparable clinical effect. The term does not include bioequivalence and bioavailability studies submitted in support of an NDA. NDAs for which clinical data are not required to demonstrate safety and effectiveness are reduced to half of the amount of the prescribed user fee, or $1,187,100 for 2016. PDUFA also imposes an annual product fee for human drugs ($114,450 per product) and an annual establishment fee ($585,200 per establishment) on facilities used to manufacture prescription drugs. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business.

The FDA reviews submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the applications. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an NDA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMPs. The

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product to specifications. The FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation regarding whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers them carefully when making decisions. NDAs submitted under Section 505(b)(2) are typically not referred to an Advisory Panel for consideration unless new safety information is revealed in the review cycle. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA, and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial, and other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will approve a product candidate for marketing, and the sponsor may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or it may condition approval on changes to the proposed labeling. The FDA also may condition approval on the development of adequate controls and specifications for manufacturing and a commitment to conduct post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the potential effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and efficacy.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approval including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Section 505(b)(2) Regulatory Approval Pathway

Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA provides an alternate regulatory pathway for approval of a new drug by allowing the FDA to rely on data not developed by the applicant. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where one or more of the investigations relied upon by the applicant for approval was not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely upon published literature and/or the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved drug already on the market.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval or submission of a 505(b)(2) application, like those for abbreviated new drugs, or ANDAs, may be delayed because of patent and/or exclusivity rights that apply to the previously approved drug.

A 505(b)(2) application may be submitted for a new chemical entity, or NCE, when some part of the data necessary for approval is derived from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and when the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Such data are typically derived from published studies, rather than FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness of a previously approved drug. For changes to a previously approved drug however, an applicant may rely on the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness of the approved drug, coupled with information needed to support the change from the approved drug, such as new studies conducted by the applicant or published data. When based on an approved drug, the 505(b)(2) drug may be approved for all of the indications permitted for the approved drug, as well as any other indication supported by additional data.

Section 505(b)(2) applications also may be entitled to marketing exclusivity if supported by appropriate data and information. As discussed in more detail below, three-year new data exclusivity may be granted to the 505(b)(2) application if one or more clinical investigations conducted in support of the application, other than bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, were essential to the approval and conducted or sponsored by the applicant. Five years of marketing exclusivity may be granted if the application is for an NCE, and pediatric exclusivity is likewise available.

Orange Book Listing and Paragraph IV Certification

For NDA submissions, including those under Section 505(b)(2), applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents with claims that cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval, each of the patents listed in the application is published in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the Orange Book. Any applicant who subsequently files an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA that references a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV certification.

If an applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the approved drug and the patent owner once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA holder or patent owner may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the earlier of 30 months from the date of the lawsuit, the applicant’s successful defense of the suit, or expiration of the patent.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation in which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, which was signed into law on July 9, 2012, amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit an NDA for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric trial(s) that the sponsor plans to conduct, including objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such information and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric trials. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP, but the sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and other clinical development programs.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval, the company and the new product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, which include monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include prohibitions on the promotion of the drugs for unapproved, or “off-label” uses. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label treatments, manufacturers may not promote such non-FDA approved uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use on an on-going basis. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes to indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a supplemental NDA or new NDA, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials.

The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. These regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMPs. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including voluntary recalls and product seizures.

Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrections to advertising or communications to doctors and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. New government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

The FDCA provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, for a drug product that contains a previously approved NCE if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability/bioequivalence studies, were essential to the application’s approval (e.g., for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug). This three-year exclusivity for new data covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication. Furthermore, this exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the nonclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States, which, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protections or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request.” The FDA issues a written request for pediatric clinical trials before approval of an NDA only where it determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population.

DEA Regulation

Because our product candidate is subject to the Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, we must comply with various requirements set forth by that legislation, as amended, its implementing regulations and as enforced by the DEA. The CSA imposes various registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, procurement and manufacturing quotas, labeling and packaging requirements, security controls, prescription and order form requirements and restrictions on prescription refills for certain kinds of pharmaceutical products. A principal factor for determining the particular requirements of the CSA applicable to a product, if any, is its actual or potential abuse profile. A product may be listed as a Schedule I, II, III, IV or V controlled substance, with Schedule I presenting the highest perceived risk of abuse and Schedule V presenting the least. For example, Schedule I controlled substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The active ingredient in our product candidate is a Schedule IV controlled substance.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as vaults and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA, for example distribution reports for Schedule I and II controlled substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because our products are, and our product candidates are expected to be, regulated as Schedule II controlled substances, they will be subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme. The DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much of a controlled substance may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. The limited aggregate amount that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, which must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production and procurement quotas. We must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure any Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance for use in manufacturing of our product and product candidates. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

In addition to federal scheduling, some drugs may be subject to state-controlled substance regulation and thus more extensive requirements than those determined by the DEA and FDA.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, the DEA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

We will also be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The ACA broadened the reach of the fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-7b. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As noted above, the federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment from federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under the federal False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for such violations could include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, mandatory civil penalties between $10,781 and $21,563 for each separate false claim, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and the potential implication of various federal criminal statutes. Private individuals also have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act, or qui tam actions, and certain states have enacted laws based on the federal False Claims Act.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state health care legislation and regulations, including regulations that will be issued to implement provisions of the health care reform legislation enacted in 2010, known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and further changes in the law or regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Employees

Pursuant to the terms of her Employment Agreement, upon completion of this offering, Lucy Lu will serve as our full-time President and Chief Executive Officer. In addition, David Horin serves in a part-time capacity as our Interim Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to an agreement between us and Chord Advisors, LLC. Dr. Scott A. Reines serves in a part-time capacity as our Interim Chief Medical Officer. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by any collective bargaining agreements. Please see “Executive Compensation” on page 83 for more information on their employment agreements.

Facilities

Our principal facilities consist of leased office space in New York, New York. We believe that this space or replacement office space will be available on commercially reasonable terms.

Legal Proceedings

We are not involved in any litigation that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before or by any court, public board, government agency, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of our executive officers, threatened against or affecting our company or our officers or directors in their capacities as such.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT

Directors and Executive Officers

The following table sets forth certain information about our directors and executive officers.

Name		Age		Position
Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D.		61		Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors
Lucy Lu, M.D.		42		Interim President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Scott A. Reines, M.D., Ph.D.		70		Interim Chief Medical Officer
David Horin, CPA		48		Interim Chief Financial Officer
Michael S. Weiss		51		Director
Neil Herskowitz		60		Director
Jeffrey Paley, MD		49		Director
Akhtar Samad, MD, PhD		57		Director
Jay Kranzler, M.D., PhD		59		Director

Executive Officers

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D. — Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors

Dr. Rosenwald has served as a member of our Board of Directors since inception. Dr. Rosenwald has been a member of the Board of Directors of Fortress since October 2009 and has served as its Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer since December 2013. He also served as Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of CB Pharma Acquisition Corp. from their inception in 2014 to June 2016. Dr. Rosenwald also is Co-Portfolio Manager and Partner of Opus Point Partners Management, LLC, an asset management firm in the life sciences industry, which he co-founded in 2009. Prior to that, from 1991 to 2008, he served as the Chairman of Paramount BioCapital, Inc. Over the last 23 years, Dr. Rosenwald has acted as a biotechnology entrepreneur and has been involved in the founding and recapitalization of numerous public and private biotechnology and life sciences companies. Dr. Rosenwald received his B.S. in finance from Pennsylvania State University and his M.D. from Temple University School of Medicine. Based on Dr. Rosenwald’s biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry experience and in-depth understanding of our business, the Board of Directors believes that Dr. Rosenwald has the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the Board of Directors in light of our business and structure.

Dr. Rosenwald’s impressive track record of achievements in leadership positions, including with public companies in the pharmaceutical and medical products industries, led to the conclusion that he should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

Lucy Lu, M.D. — Interim President and Chief Executive Officer and Director

Dr. Lu has been our Interim President and Chief Executive Officer since inception. Dr. Lu has been the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fortress since February 2012. Prior to working in the biotech industry, Dr. Lu worked for ten years in healthcare-related equity research and investment banking. From February 2007 through January 2012, Dr. Lu was a senior biotechnology equity analyst with Citigroup Investment Research. From 2004 until joining Citigroup, she was with First Albany Capital, serving as Vice President from April 2004 until becoming a Principal of the firm in February 2006. Dr. Lu holds an M.D. degree from the New York University School of Medicine and an M.B.A. from the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University. Dr. Lu obtained a B.A. from the University of Tennessee’s College of Arts and Science.

Dr. Lu’s extensive leadership and management experience and her experience as the Interim President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and her deep understanding of the Company’s history, business and strategic evolution led to the conclusion that she should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Scott A. Reines, M.D., Ph.D. — Interim Chief Medical Officer

Dr. Reines has served as our Interim Chief Medical Officer since January 2016. Dr. Reines been an independent consultant to the pharmaceutical industry since 2008. As Senior Vice President for CNS, Pain, and Translational Medicine at Johnson & Johnson from 2003 to 2008, he oversaw the development and approval of INVEGA and INVEGA SUSTENNA for schizophrenia, NUCYNTA for moderate to severe pain, REMINYL ER for Alzheimer’s disease, RISPERDAL CONSTA for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, RISPERDAL for treatment of the autism, and TOPAMAX for prevention of migraine and seizures. At Johnson & Johnson, he was responsible for all CNS and Pain products, as well as for Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, and was a member of the Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical R&D Board of Directors.

Previously, Dr. Reines was Vice President, Clinical Research at Merck from 1988 to 2003, with responsibilities for Psychopharmacology, Neuropharmacology, Gastroenterology, and Ophthalmology. There he led the development of EMEND for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, MAXALT for treatment of migraine headache, SINEMET-CR for Parkinson’s disease, and TRUSOPT, COSOPT, and TIMOPTIC-XE for prevention of glaucoma. Currently, Dr. Reines consults for biotech, pharmaceutical, and venture firms, is a member of two Scientific Advisory Boards, and Chair of a Data Safety Monitoring Board. He is also a member of two non-profit boards, serving as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of KidsPeace, a large children’s psychiatric healthcare provider, and as a member of the Board of Directors of Heritage Conservancy, which is directed toward land preservation. Dr. Reines also served for two years as co-chair of the Neuroscience Steering Committee, Foundation for NIH Biomarkers Consortium, and spent five years on the National Drug Abuse Advisory Council. He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Cornell University, a PhD in chemistry/molecular biology from Columbia University, and an MD from Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is Board Certified in Psychiatry and Neurology.

David Horin, CPA — Interim CFO

Mr. Horin has served as our Interim Chief Financial Officer under our agreement with Chord Advisors, LLC since June 2015. Pursuant to such agreement, we pay Chord $7,500 per month for its back office accounting support and accounting policy and financial reporting services that it provides to us, including the services of Mr. Horin. Mr. Horin provides services of approximately 25 hours per month. We do not have information, nor any influence over Mr. Horin’s direct compensation from Chord. Mr. Horin has been a Managing Partner of Chord since June 2012. Chord provides accounting advisory services, SEC reporting advisory services, and IPO-readiness services. While at Chord, Mr. Horin has gained extensive experience in financial accounting and SEC reporting for complex business transactions and issues arising from the application of existing or proposed financial accounting guidance. From March 2008 to June 2012, Mr. Horin was the Chief Financial Officer of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc., a full-service investment bank dedicated to providing corporate finance, strategic advisory, sales and trading and related services to public and private companies across multiple sectors and regions. From March 2003 through March 2008, Mr. Horin was the Chief Accounting Officer at Jefferies Group, Inc., a full-service global investment bank and institutional securities firm focused on growth and middle-market companies and their investors. Prior to his employment at Jefferies Group, Inc., from 2000 to 2003, Mr. Horin was a Senior Manager in KPMG’s Department of Professional Practice in New York, where he advised firm members and clients on technical accounting and risk management matters for a variety of public, international and early growth stage entities. Mr. Horin’s education as well as his years of experience as a senior finance executive provide an excellent foundation for his service as our interim Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Horin has a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Baruch College, City University of New York. Mr. Horin is also a Certified Public Accountant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Non-Executive Directors

Michael S. Weiss

Mr. Weiss has served as a member of our Board of Directors since March 2015 and has served as a director and Executive Vice Chairman of Fortress since February 2014. Mr. Weiss has served as both a director and member of senior management in public and private companies over the past two decades. He also served as Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of CB Pharma Acquisition Corp. from their inception in 2014 to June 2016. He has also served as Executive Chairman, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of TG Therapeutics, Inc., a company he founded in 2011. Mr. Weiss is also currently Co-Portfolio Manager and Partner of Opus Point Partners, LLC, which he co-founded in 2009. From 2002 to 2009, Mr. Weiss was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., where he helped the company acquire and develop its lead drug, Auryxia, as well as executed a strategic alliance for Auryxia with Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. worth more than $100 million. Mr. Weiss also served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of National Holdings Corporation from 2011 to 2012. Mr. Weiss’ extensive experience founding and managing early stage life science companies makes is the ideal background for a member of our Board of Directors. Mr. Weiss began his professional career as a lawyer with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. He earned his J.D. from Columbia Law School and his B.S. in Finance from The University at Albany.

Mr. Weiss’ achievements and wide-ranging experience in the pharmaceutical and medical products sectors led to the conclusion that he should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

Neil Herskowitz

Mr. Herskowitz joined our Board of Directors in December 2015. Mr. Herskowitz has been a Managing Member of the ReGen Group of Companies since 1998, which include Riverside Contracting LLC, Riverside Claims LLC, ReGen Capital I LLC, ReGen Partners LLC, ReGen Partners I L.P. and, most recently, ReGen Capital Investments LLC and Riverside Claims Investments LLC. He has extensive board membership experience, including as a director of TG Therapeutics, Inc., a public company, from July 2004 to June 2015; Chairman of the Board of Directors of Starting Point Services for Children, a not-for-profit corporation; a Non-Executive Director at Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. since August 2015; an Independent Director and Audit Committee Chairman at CB Pharma Acquisition Corporation from November 2014 to May 2016; and previous director positions on the Board of Directors of CytRx Oncology Corporation, Alacrity Biosciences, Inc., Innovive Pharmaceuticals and Chelsea Therapeutics International Ltd. (formerly, Ivory Capital Corp). Mr. Herskowitz earned a B.B.A. in Finance from Bernard M. Baruch College in 1978.

Mr. Herskowitz’s background and experience in public accounting and his qualification as an “audit committee financial expert” under SEC rules led to the conclusion that he should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

Jeffrey Paley, MD.

Dr. Paley joined our Board of Directors in December 2015. Dr. Jeffrey Paley has been an Active Clinician and Consultant in the healthcare industry for the past 18 years, during which time Dr. Paley has consulted for over 30 analysts and portfolio managers in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and medical technology arenas, reviewing the clinical, preclinical and regulatory pedigrees of numerous therapeutics and devices. Prior to his work for the buy-side, Dr. Paley consulted directly for several biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Paley founded Access Medical Associates in 2003, after spending five years on the full-time academic faculty of Weill Cornell Medical College, where he served as a Director of Clinical Research at the Cornell Internal Medicine Associates. At Weill Cornell, Dr. Paley was a Principal or Co-Principal Investigator on several studies of diabetes, hypertension, and cholesterol disorders, including the landmark ACCORD study of intensive hyperglycemia, hypertension and hyperlipidemia management. He has served as a Director of Kellbenx, Retrophin and Remote Radiology Inc. Dr. Paley trained at Harvard Medical School and completed a residency in Internal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Paley has been selected to serve on our Board of Directors based on his experience, including his experience in medicine and clinical trials and in serving as a director of other public companies.

Dr. Paley’s medical background and broad business experience in the pharmaceutical industry led to the conclusion that he should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

Akhtar Samad, MD, PhD

Dr. Samad joined our Board of Directors in December 2015. Akhtar established Symbios Partners in 2008 to address what he perceived as an unmet need in the advisory space — a hybrid strategic advisory and IR consultancy, offering a variety of proprietary services across such areas as clinical and business development, investment thesis and positioning, market intelligence, investor/analyst outreach and financing strategies. He works closely with senior members of client management teams, including CEO, CBO, CMO/CSO, CFO and Director of Communications, to formulate and revise client corporate strategy. Prior to launching Symbios, Akhtar was a Managing Director at Bear Stearns where he directed the small/mid-cap biotechnology equity research team from 2000 – 2008. He is a former academic cancer and genomics researcher, who trained with the co-discoverer of VEGF at Harvard, and completed his medical residency and fellowship at Cornell and the National Cancer Institute. He has been an invited moderator at the Annual Cancer Progress Conferences, and has moderated other oncology and genomics conferences. He received his MD/PhD training at NYU Medical School. Dr. Samad has been selected to serve on our Board of Directors based on his experience, including his experience in biopharmaceutical equity research, strategy and finance.

Dr. Samad’s extensive leadership and management experience, including strategic planning, business development, market research, and financing strategies in the biopharmaceutical industry led to the conclusion that he should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

Jay Kranzler, M.D., PhD

Dr. Kranzler joined our Board of Directors in February 2017. Dr. Kranzler has been a Founder, CEO, Board Member, and Advisor to leading life science companies for over 30 years. He is currently acting as Chief Executive Officer of Regenovation, a regenerative medicine company, and is a Board Member of Methylation Sciences, Pastorus, and ImmunoBrain Checkpoint, all companies focused on developing therapeutics for psychiatric or neurological disorders. Dr. Kranzler started his career at McKinsey & Company in 1985 where he was involved in establishing the Firm’s pharmaceutical practice. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Cytel Corporation from 1989 – 1995, a company focused on the development of immunomodulatory drugs. Following Cytel, in 1996, Dr. Kranzler became the Chief Executive Officer of Cypress Bioscience, where he served through 2011. At Cypress, Dr. Kranzler was credited for the development of Savella^TM (milnacipran) for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Dr. Kranzler was also Vice President, Head of External R&D Innovation and Worldwide R&D Strategic Investments at Pfizer from 2013 – 2016. During his career, Dr. Kranzler has developed drugs, medical devices, as well as diagnostics, and is the inventor on over 30 patents. Dr. Kranzler graduated from Yale University School of Medicine with MD and PhD degrees in 1985 with a focus in psychopharmacology.

Dr. Kranzler’s extensive experience in leadership positions in the pharmaceutical and medical products industries led to the conclusion that he should serve as a member of our Board of Directors.

Family Relationships

There are no family relationship between any director, executive officer or person nominated to become a director or executive officer.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Status as a Controlled Company

Fortress controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common stock. As a result, we are a “controlled company” under NASDAQ corporate governance standards. As a controlled company, exemptions under NASDAQ standards will exempt us from certain NASDAQ corporate governance requirements, including the requirements:

Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of NASDAQ’s corporate governance requirements. In the event that we cease to be a controlled company, we will be required to comply with these provisions within the transition periods specified in NASDAQ rules.

These exemptions do not modify the independence requirements for our audit committee, and we expect to satisfy the member independence requirement for the audit committee prior to the end of the transition period provided under NASDAQ rules and SEC rules.

Board Committees

Our Board of Directors has established an audit committee and a compensation committee, each of which operates under a charter that has been approved by our Board of Directors.

Our Board of Directors has determined that, upon completion of this offering, all of the members of the audit committee and the compensation committee will be independent as defined under the applicable rules of The NASDAQ Capital Market, including, in the case of all of the members of our audit committee, the independence requirements contemplated by Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. In making such determination, the Board of Directors considered the relationships that each director has with our company and all other facts and circumstances that the Board of Directors deemed relevant in determining director independence, including the beneficial ownership of our capital stock by each director.

Composition of our Board of Directors and Committees

Our Bylaws provide that our Board of Directors must consist of between one and nine directors, and such number of directors within this range may be determined from time to time by resolution of our Board of Directors or our stockholders. Currently, we have seven directors.

Our Bylaws also provide that our directors may be removed with or without cause by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least a majority of the shares then entitled to vote at an election of directors. An election of our directors by our stockholders will be determined by a plurality of the votes cast by the stockholders entitled to vote on the election.

Our current and future executive officers and significant employees serve at the discretion of our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors has decided to form a compensation and an audit committee.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Audit Committee

The members of our audit committee are Neil Herskowitz, Jeffrey Paley, M.D. and Akhtar Samad, M.D., PhD. Neil Herskowitz chairs the audit committee. Upon the closing of this offering, our audit committee’s responsibilities will include:

All audit and non-audit services, other than de minimis non-audit services, to be provided to us by our independent registered public accounting firm must be approved in advance by our audit committee.

Our Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Herskowitz is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by applicable SEC rules.

Compensation Committee

The members of our compensation committee are Jay Kranzler, M.D., PhD, Jeffrey Paley, M.D. and Akhtar Samad, M.D., PhD. Dr. Kranzler chairs the compensation committee. Upon the closing of this offering, our compensation committee’s responsibilities will include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

None of our executive officers serves as a member of the Board of Directors or compensation committee, or other committee serving an equivalent function, of any other entity that has one or more of its executive officers serving as a member of our Board of Directors or our compensation committee.

Director Compensation

None of our directors received any compensation for their service as a director since our inception February 9, 2015 through December 31, 2016. Our Compensation Committee will evaluate director compensation following the completion of this offering.

Communicating with the Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors has established a process by which stockholders can send communications to the Board of Directors. You may communicate with the Board of Directors as a group, or to specific directors, by writing to our Corporate Secretary, at our offices located at 2 Gansevoort Street, 9^th Floor, New York, NY 10014. The Corporate Secretary will review all such correspondence and regularly forward to our Board of Directors a summary of all correspondence and copies of all correspondence that, in the opinion of the Corporate Secretary, deals with the functions of the Board of Directors or committees thereof or that he otherwise determines requires their attention. Directors may at any time review a log of all correspondence we receive that is addressed to members of our Board of Directors and request copies of any such correspondence. Concerns relating to accounting, internal controls, or auditing matters may be communicated in this manner. These concerns will be immediately brought to the attention of our Board of Directors and handled in accordance with procedures established by our Board of Directors.

Code of Ethics

We adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to all directors, officers and employees. Our Code of Ethics is available on our website at www.avenuetx.com. A copy of our code of ethics will also be provided to any person without charge, upon written request sent to us at our offices located at 2 Gansevoort Street, 9^th Floor, New York, NY 10014.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The Summary Compensation Table below sets forth information regarding the compensation awarded to or earned by our named executive officers during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016.

Summary Compensation Table for 2016

Name and Principal Position		Year				Salary ($)				Bonus ($)				Stock Awards ($) (1)				Total ($)
Lucy Lu (2) Chief Executive Officer			2016				181,132 (2	)		$	135,800 (5	)			27,875				344,805
			2015				40,155 (2	)							20,047				60,202
Scott A. Reines Interim Chief Medical Officer			2016				43,175 (3	)							—				43,175
			2015				16,040 (3	)							—				16,040
David J. Horin Interim Chief Financial Officer			2016				50,000 (4	)							—				50,000
			2015				13,500 (4	)							—				13,500

Compensation Arrangements for Executive Officers

On June 10, 2015, we entered into an Employment Agreement with Lucy Lu, M.D., or the Employment Agreement, to serve as our Interim President and Chief Executive Officer upon the completion of this offering. Under the terms of Dr. Lu’s Employment Agreement, upon the completion of this offering, Dr. Lu’s base salary will be equal to $395,000 per year. Dr. Lu’s base salary may be reduced only in connection with a company-wide decrease in executive compensation. Dr. Lu is also eligible to receive an annual discretionary bonus, not to exceed 50% of her base salary, if certain financial, clinical development, and/or business milestones are met in the discretion of Board of Directors. Such milestones will be established annually by mutual agreement between Dr. Lu and the Board of Directors. Prior to her execution of the Employment Agreement, Ms. Lu was awarded 1,000,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to a Restricted Stock Issuance Agreement between us and Ms. Lu, dated May 28, 2015. Dr. Lu’s employment with us is at will and may be terminated by us at any time and for any reason. However, under the terms of the Employment Agreement, if we terminate Dr. Lu’s employment without cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement) or if Dr. Lu resigns her employment for good reason (as defined in the Employment Agreement), Dr. Lu will be entitled to receive the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

If Dr. Lu’s employment is terminated due to her Death or Complete Disability (as defined in the Employment Agreement), she shall be entitled to receive the following:

The term of the Employment Agreement begins when this registration statement is declared effective. Dr. Lu is also the Chief Financial Officer of Fortress.

Although no formal written agreement has been entered into with Dr. Rosenwald, our Executive Chairman, we have orally agreed to pay Dr. Rosenwald a cash salary equal to $50,000 per year for services as our executive chairman, provided that no payments will be made to Dr. Rosenwald until we complete a third party financing, which includes this offering.

On January 25, 2016, we entered into a First Amendment to our Consulting Agreement with Dr. Reines, which we originally entered into on July 22, 2015. The original agreement provided that Dr. Reines would provide general consulting services relating to statistical, clinical and other strategic issues. Under the agreement, as amended, Dr. Reines will serve as our Interim Chief Medical Officer and will remain an independent contractor. Pursuant to the agreement, we pay Dr. Reines $400.00 per hour for all services provided to us. We entered into a Second Amendment with Dr. Reines in August 2016 that extends the agreement for a period of two years, followed by automatic renewal for successive one-year periods, unless earlier terminated.

On June 12, 2015, we entered into an agreement with Chord, under which Mr. Horin will serve as our Interim Chief Financial Officer and Chord will provide back office accounting support as well as accounting policy and financial reporting for us. We paid Chord an advisory fee of $5,000 per month prior to the public filing of this registration statement and have agreed to pay $7,500 per month thereafter. The arrangement can be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice. Chord also provides advisory services to Fortress. We do not have information or any influence over Mr. Horin’s direct compensation from Chord.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2016

The following table provides information regarding outstanding stock awards held by our named executive officers as of December 31, 2016. We have not granted any stock options to our named executive officers.

		Stock Awards
Name		Grant Date				Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) (1)				Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($) (1)				Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) (2)				Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units of Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($) (2)
Lucy Lu			6/10/2015				375,000			$	72,750				500,000			$	97,000

Employee Benefit and Incentive Plans

We do not maintain any deferred compensation, retirement, pension or profit sharing plans. Our Board of Directors has adopted an incentive plan, the material terms of which are described below, allowing for the grant of equity and cash-based awards to our employees and directors.

Director Compensation

None of our directors received any compensation for their service as a director since our inception February 9, 2015 through December 31, 2016. Following the completion of this offering, our Compensation Committee will determine the compensation of our independent directors, if any.

Equity Incentive Plan

2015 Incentive Plan

On December 10, 2015, our Board of Directors adopted the Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. 2015 Incentive Plan, or the 2015 Plan. The material terms of the 2015 Plan are described below. As set forth below, the 2015 Plan will be administered by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee has not yet been formed, but it will be formed before any necessary actions to be taken by the Compensation Committee with respect to the 2015 Plan are taken.

Purpose.  The purpose of the 2015 Plan is to promote our success by linking the personal interests of our employees, officers, directors and consultants to those of our stockholders, and by providing participants with an incentive for outstanding performance.

Permissible Awards.  The 2015 Plan authorizes the Compensation Committee to grant awards in any of the following forms:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

All awards will be evidenced by a written award certificate between us and the participant, which will include such provisions as may be specified by the Compensation Committee. Dividend equivalent rights, which entitle the participant to payments in cash or property calculated by reference to the amount of dividends paid on the shares of stock underlying an award, may be granted with respect to awards other than options or SARs.

Awards to Non-Employee Directors.  Awards granted under the 2015 Plan to our non-employee directors will be made only in accordance with the terms, conditions and parameters of a plan, program or policy for the compensation of non-employee directors as in effect from time to time. The Compensation Committee may not make discretionary grants under the 2015 Plan to non-employee directors. The maximum aggregate number of shares associated with any award granted under the 2015 Plan in any calendar year to any one non-employee director is 100,000.