Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

_____________

FORM 10-K

_____________

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024

OR

Commission File Number: 001-42139

________________________

Actuate Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

________________________

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (817) 887-8455

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 229.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý No ☐

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of August 30, 2024, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $48 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market of $8.05 per share. The registrant has elected to use August 30, 2024 as the calculation date because, as on June 28, 2024 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) the registrant was a privately held company until its initial public offering in August 2024.

On March 10, 2025, 19,531,636 shares of common stock, $0.000001 par value per share, were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

Table of Contents

Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Actuate,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Actuate Therapeutics, Inc.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Report” or “Annual Report”) contains forward-looking statements about us and our industry. In addition, from time to time, we or our representatives have made or will make forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements related to present facts or current conditions or of historical facts, contained in this Report, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, and projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, research and development plans, the anticipated timing, costs, design and conduct of our ongoing and planned clinical trials and preclinical studies for elraglusib and any future product candidates, the timing and likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals for elraglusib and any future product candidates, our ability to commercialize elraglusib and any future product candidates, if approved, the pricing and reimbursement of elraglusib and any future product candidates, if approved, the potential to develop future product candidates, the potential benefits of strategic collaborations and potential to enter into any future strategic arrangements, the timing and likelihood of success, plans and objectives of management for future operations, and future results of anticipated product development efforts, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. These statements involve estimates, assumptions and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in them. In addition, any forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by reference to the factors summarized under the heading “Risk Factor Summary” and discussed further under the heading “Risk Factors” in this Report.

You should assume that the information appearing in this Report is accurate as of its date only. Because the risk factors referred to above could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict which factors will arise. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf made after the date of this Report are expressly qualified in their entirety by the risk factors and cautionary statements contained in this Report. Unless legally required, we do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to such forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similarly qualified statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and you are cautioned not to rely unduly upon them.

The discussion of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included in this Report.

PART I

Item 1.  Business.

Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for the treatment of high impact, difficult to treat cancers through the inhibition of glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3). We are developing elraglusib (formerly 9-ING-41), an ATP-competitive small molecule that is designed to enter cancer cells and block the function of the enzyme glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta (“GSK-3β”), a master regulator of complex biological signaling cascades, including those mediated by oncogenes, that lead to tumor cell survival, growth, migration, and invasion. We believe that the blockade of GSK-3β signaling ultimately results in the death of the cancer cells and the regulation of anti-tumor immunity.

We have exclusively licensed a portfolio of GSK-3 inhibitors developed in a collaboration between The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois-Chicago (“UIC”) and Northwestern University (“NU”). Elraglusib is the lead drug in our portfolio and is being evaluated in a randomized Phase 2 trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“mPDAC”), our most advanced clinical indication to date. We are also advancing a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in refractory pediatric malignancies, including Ewing sarcoma (“EWS”).

Elraglusib represents a broad opportunity for us to potentially initiate and advance multiple drug development programs around our lead asset based on data emerging from completed or ongoing Phase 1/2 trials and non-clinical biological, cellular, and animal data. Animal tumor model data, Phase 1/2 clinical data and AI-based computational approaches have identified a number of areas of unmet clinical need in cancer treatment where elraglusib may play an interventional role, including pancreatic, metastatic melanoma, lung, colon, breast, renal, and ovarian cancer, leukemias and lymphomas, as well as some pediatric cancers including Ewing sarcoma, neuroblastoma and pediatric leukemias.

Elraglusib Injection

Our lead clinical program, referred to as Actuate-1801, is an intravenous (“IV”) injection solution of elraglusib (“Elraglusib Injection”) that we are evaluating for the treatment of first-line mPDAC.

To date, we have treated over 500 patients with Elraglusib Injection in Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies. Elraglusib Injection is currently being evaluated in a Phase 2 study (as part 3B of our Actuate 1801 protocol) as a weekly IV infusion in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (“GnP”). Overall survival (“OS”) has been summarized throughout the study by following and reporting 1 year survival rate. The primary endpoint at the end of the study will be summarized as median overall survival (“mOS”). The study completed enrollment in January 2024, and top-line results are expected to be presented in the second quarter of 2025. As further described below, we conducted a preliminary analysis of interim data in the pre-specified safety population as of November 15, 2024, at the point when >70% of death events occurred in the GnP control arm. Log-rank analysis will be used to determine statistical significance when comparing the elraglusib/GnP and GnP arms of the study.

The analysis of interim data demonstrated that treatment with elraglusib in combination with GnP resulted in statistically significant increases in 1-year survival rate (p-value of 0.002) and mOS (hazard ratio of 0.63, p-value of 0.016) versus treatment with GnP alone. The combination treatment also resulted in increased Objective Response Rates (“ORR”) and Disease Control Rates (“DCR”) in the elraglusib/GnP combination arm versus the GnP control arm. As depicted in Figure 1 and below, interim data highlights from the predefined safety population as of the November 15, 2024 cutoff date include:

Figure 1: Actuate-1801 Part 3B: Draft unaudited Phase 2 data of elraglusib in mPDAC (as of November 15, 2024).

As with all preliminary analyses of interim data, this data should not be relied upon as a final analysis and is subject to change once full data analysis is complete.

At the completion of this Phase 2 study, we plan to meet with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) and discuss the design and execution of a Phase 3 registration study. In addition, we plan to discuss the use of the Phase 2 data to support potential registration.

As discussed in more detail below under “History of Elraglusib Clinical Development,” the Phase 2 trial followed the evaluation of Elraglusib Injection in a Phase 1 dose escalation study (Actuate-1801 Part 1) in 238 adult patients with refractory advanced cancers when given as a single agent (n=67) or in combination with chemotherapy (n=171). The objective of this study was to establish the safety profile of elraglusib when used alone or in combination with chemotherapy and to identify either a maximum tolerated dose (“MTD”) or recommended Phase 2 dose (“RP2D”) to then inform the design of exploratory efficacy studies in Phase 2. Subjects in this study were diagnosed with a variety of cancer types and most patients had received two or more previous lines of chemotherapy prior to enrollment in the study. Objective responses and durable disease control were observed in both the single agent and combination treatment arms of the study. The most common TEAEs attributed to elraglusib were transient visual disturbance (patients described lights as brighter and skin tones as darker, which resolved spontaneously) and fatigue across both study parts. The majority (>99%) of TEAEs that occurred in ≥ 20% of patients were reported as Grade 1 or 2 (mild or moderate). In combination with chemotherapy, no new safety signals were observed. While the elraglusib/GnP combination appears to be well-tolerated and well-managed in the clinic, we do not yet know whether any increase in the number or severity of toxicities will be attributable to elraglusib and thus the elraglusib/GnP combination will have its own safety profile that will need to be evaluated and discussed with regulators.

Based on the results of the Phase 1 study, we initiated a single arm Phase 2 study (“Actuate-1801 Part 3A” or “Part 3A”) in patients with previously untreated mPDAC. This study was originally designed as a single arm exploratory Simon two-stage trial (and therefore not designed or powered to demonstrate statistical significance). The elraglusib dose was started at the RP2D evaluated in the latter part of the Phase 1 trial (15 milligrams of drug per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) administered twice weekly). No new safety signals were observed with the elraglusib/GnP combination, but investigators observed that GnP toxicities may have occurred earlier and may have been more intense in some patients than would be anticipated for GnP alone. For these reasons, the dose of elraglusib was proactively reduced near the end of the Part 3A study to 9.3 mg/kg administered twice weekly. After an analysis conducted following the completion of Part 3A, which showed an mOS of 15.3 months in the efficacy evaluable (n=29) patient population, we amended and expanded the second stage of the study to a randomized, controlled trial now powered for statistical significance (“Actuate-1801 Part 3B” or “Part 3B”) that would allow a comparison of the safety and efficacy of the combination of Elraglusib Injection plus GnP versus GnP alone in 286 patients.

In addition, Elraglusib Injection is also being evaluated in pediatric cancer patients with recurrent/refractory solid cancers. This study, Actuate-1902, is a Phase 1/2 study that evaluated escalating doses of elraglusib as a single agent as well as in combination with irinotecan or cyclophosphamide/topotecan in the Phase 1 portion. This study was based off the RP2D from the Actuate-1801 adult cancer study using twice weekly dosing of elraglusib. Patients in this Actuate-1902 study also experienced a number of objective responses in the combination chemotherapy arms, and based on this data, we identified Ewing sarcoma as a potential second indication for further development of Elraglusib Injection. Currently, the Actuate-1902 study is open but only accruing patients with refractory Ewing sarcoma into the Phase 1 portion of the study. Subject to future funding, we plan to further investigate the activity of elraglusib in the Ewing sarcoma patient population.

Elraglusib Oral Tablet Development Plans

We have developed several oral dosage forms of elraglusib, which we believe will allow us to expand the number of cancer indications that we are able to target and allow us to further explore more convenient dose delivery options for patients. A clinical candidate tablet, the Elraglusib Oral Tablet, has been selected for further development and we are planning a Phase 1 study (Actuate-2401) to identify the MTD and RP2D for Elraglusib Oral Tablet in adult patients with advanced, refractory cancers, subject to future funding. Subject to additional funding, several Phase 2 studies have been identified for further clinical development of Elraglusib Oral Tablet based on data from the Actuate-1801 study in indications, including but not limited to, refractory, metastatic melanoma and refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer.

Our Market Opportunity

Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (“mPDAC”)

According to the American Cancer Society, the annual incidence of pancreatic cancer is expected to exceed 67,000 patients in the United States in 2025 and approximately 70% of these patients will present with metastatic disease. A recent review of clinical trials in Future Oncology¹ showed that the mOS in patients with mPDAC treated with GnP ranged from approximately 3.6 to 9.8 months with an unweighted mOS of 6.9 months. Therefore, we believe the ability to extend survival by even a few months would be considered meaningful in this patient population.

We are developing elraglusib for patients with mPDAC who have not previously received systemic treatment for their metastatic disease. Due to lack of early symptoms, approximately 80-90% of all patients with pancreatic cancer are unresectable, and present with advanced or metastatic disease. In addition, 80-90% of PDAC cases do not have a high tumor mutational burden in general, and are unlikely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors such as pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab has been approved for patients with metastatic solid cancer with high tumor burden but is rarely used in metastatic pancreatic cancer for this reason. However, frequent mutations in KRAS and TP53 oncogenes drive pancreatic tumor growth and treatment resistance, often making PDAC refractory to chemotherapy.

Current first-line therapies for mPDAC consist of GnP, FOLFIRINOX, or irinotecan liposomal injection given with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (“NALIRIFOX”). NALIRIFOX was recently approved (February 2024) and may provide an alternative to FOLFIRINOX with a somewhat improved safety profile.

The mOS in mPDAC patients is 11.1 months with NALIRIFOX, 11.2 months with FOLFIRINOX and 7 to 10 months with GnP, respectively, in the first-line setting. NALIRIFOX demonstrated superiority to GnP in the NAPOLI-3 trial (mOS 11.1 vs 9.2 months). However, safety profiles between these three chemotherapy backbones are quite different: FOLFIRINOX leads to higher rates of neutropenia and nausea, NALIRIFOX has more gastrointestinal and constitutional toxicity such as nausea, diarrhea and fatigue, and GnP treatment leads to increased myelosuppression and neurotoxicity. An analysis of an insurance claims database indicated that first-line treatment from 2014-2018 was split between FOLFIRINOX and GnP. We believe it is too early to predict how NALIRIFOX will fit into clinical use in patients with mPDAC.

Our management believes elraglusib may improve outcomes in first-line mPDAC regardless of the chemotherapy backbone used. Patients with mPDAC are often resistant or become resistant to the first-line chemotherapy backbones currently used to treat them. Part of elraglusib’s mechanism of action is the ability to enhance chemotherapy activity even in resistant tumors and we believe this has been demonstrated in multiple animal tumor models. In addition, elraglusib has shown the ability to enhance the activity of several chemotherapy drugs that comprise the current first-line backbones in mPDAC including gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel and irinotecan, suggesting the potential for elraglusib to be used in combination with multiple first-line mPDAC treatments. In addition to the activity observed in our 1801 Part 3B study evaluating the activity of elraglusib/GnP combination in mPDAC, an additional exploratory Phase 2 study is ongoing through an investigator initiated trial (“IIT”) in patients with mPDAC evaluating the combination of elraglusib/FOLFIRINOX/losartan combination in up to 65 patients. Early evidence of increased clinical activity in patients receiving this combination was recently presented at the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Research. This trial is being led by Dr. Colin Weekes at Massachusetts General Hospital (“MGH”) and is supported by the Lustgarten Foundation as well as Actuate. Additional sites participating in the study include The University of Colorado and the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Thus, our plan, subject to available funding, is to develop elraglusib in combination with the present first-line chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of mPDAC, as exemplified by our lead program of elraglusib/GnP combination and later moving to combinations with either FOLFIRINOX or NALIRIFOX pending results of the FOLFIRINOX combination trial. If shown to be clinically active, elraglusib/chemotherapy combinations could eventually be used to treat a large segment of mPDAC patients.

Elraglusib has been granted Fast Track and Orphan Drug Designations from the FDA for pancreatic cancer in the United States and Orphan Drug Designation for soft tissue sarcomas in the United States. Elraglusib received Orphan Medicinal Product Designation (“OMPD”) for both pancreatic cancer and sarcoma from the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”). Actuate is planning a Type D meeting with the FDA to discuss Phase 3 design and an End of Phase 2 (Type B) meeting to discuss future development plans in 2025.

____________________

¹ Cockrum P, Dennen S, Brown A, Briggs J, Paluri R. Real-world clinical outcomes and economic burden of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. Future Oncol. 2025; 21: 241-260. doi: 10.1080/14796694.2024.2435253. Epub 2024 Dec 8.

Treatment of Ewing Sarcoma

An estimated 9,550 children (ages 0-14 years) and 5,140 adolescents (ages 15-19 years) are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in the United States in 2025. It was also estimated that 1,050 children and 600 adolescents will die from the disease in the United States in 2025. While death rates for pediatric and adolescent cancers have declined by more than 50% over the last five decades due to improved treatment options, there is still room for improvement. Despite the improved survival offered by current therapies, approximately 40% of childhood cancer survivors have severe, life-threatening or fatal complications within 30 years of diagnosis and up to 90% of survivors will have a chronic health condition by the age of 45. These long-term effects are related to the type of treatment used such as chemotherapy and radiation which can have a material adverse impact on developing organs. Work is ongoing to determine how to more effectively identify underlying mechanisms of pediatric cancers in an effort to develop and administer more targeted, more effective and less toxic treatments.

Based on extensive preclinical work in pediatric malignancies showing excellent synergy between elraglusib and standard of care chemotherapy in neuroblastoma, sarcoma, glioma and others, we initiated the Actuate-1902 Phase 1 study to evaluate the safety of elraglusib +/- chemotherapy in pediatric patients with refractory malignancies in 2020. The dose escalation part of the study assigned patients to elraglusib alone, elraglusib/irinotecan or elraglusib/cyclophosphamide and topotecan (“CT”). As of December 31, 2024, 40 patients had been enrolled and received at least one dose of elraglusib. No SAEs were observed with elraglusib monotherapy at the first two dose levels and positive results were observed for some patients as discussed under “Our Solution – Current Elraglusib Development - Developing Elraglusib IV for the Treatment of Ewing Sarcoma – Actuate 1902” below. Upon determination of RP2D for monotherapy and combination therapy, we had originally intended to initiate a Phase 2 study in neuroblastoma. However, recently approved anti-GD2 antibodies have shown considerable improvement of response rate, progression-free survival (“PFS”), and survival, making development in this population much more challenging.

Based on the positive response from a Ewing sarcoma patient further discussed below under “Developing Elraglusib Injection for the Treatment of Ewing Sarcoma – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Plans – Actuate-1902,” six additional patients with metastatic, refractory Ewing and Ewing-like sarcoma were enrolled in the elraglusib/CT combination arm. There are currently no known treatment regimens that meaningfully extend life in Ewing sarcoma patients with metastatic, refractory disease. The five-year survival rate for patients who have recurrent (relapsed) disease is <30%. Patients who are refractory and have metastases and disease progression despite two or more chemotherapy regimens generally have a very short survival of 3-8 months. Twelve patients including ten Ewing sarcoma patients, one patient with desmoplastic small round cell tumors (“DSRCT”) and one patient with CIC rearranged sarcoma were enrolled in our Actuate-1902 trial. All twelve patients appear to have metastatic disease and had disease progression prior to joining the study despite undergoing previous treatment combinations including chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgical procedures. Eight patients received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens, prior to entering the 1902 study. All patients received the combination of elraglusib and cyclophosphamide/topotecan. We believe this exploratory Ewing sarcoma data, discussed further under “Developing Elraglusib IV for the Treatment of Ewing Sarcoma – Actuate 1902” below, is sufficiently positive in this orphan pediatric cancer indication to consider additional development in Ewing sarcoma. The Actuate-1902 Phase 1 arm of the study is open to enrollment, focusing on recruitment of patients with refractory Ewing sarcoma.

The FDA has granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation (“RPDD”) to elraglusib for our treatment of EWS. Rare Pediatric Disease Designation is granted by the FDA for serious or life-threatening diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States and in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals less than 18 years of age. If, in the future, a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for elraglusib for the treatment of Ewing sarcoma is approved by the FDA, we may be eligible to receive a Priority Review Voucher (“PRV”) that could be utilized by us or potentially sold to another company for its use.

Our Pipeline and Development Timeline

Our initial focus is on the development of GSK-3 inhibitors for the treatment of cancers with ineffective treatment options and poor overall survival. Given our ability to formulate elraglusib in both the Elraglusib Injection and Elraglusib Oral Tablet forms, if adequate funding is secured, and given the potential to use it in different ways depending on the cancer type, we believe that elraglusib represents a pipeline in a molecule, as shown in the Figure 2 below. We are currently focused on advancing our trials in mPDAC with Elraglusib Injection. Our ability to advance our ongoing and planned clinical trials listed in Figure 2 will depend on whether we have or raise sufficient capital to support those trials.

Figure 2: Ongoing and planned clinical trials.

Our Strengths

We believe that we have several strengths that support our vision of developing therapies for the treatment of high impact, difficult to treat cancers through the inhibition of GSK-3, including:

Our Business Strategies

Subject to available financing, we intend to develop elraglusib in a broad list of advanced cancer indications, initially in patients with refractory disease and with an initial focus on metastatic pancreatic cancer. We believe that our two product candidates, Elraglusib Injection and Elraglusib Oral Tablet, will provide us with two different dosage forms of drug product with different attributes that will allow us to tailor each dosage form to a specific cancer type to potentially improve outcomes and compliance. Key elements of our strategy to accomplish this objective include:

About Elraglusib (9-ING-41)

There are no approved high-affinity inhibitors of GSK-3β and we believe elraglusib is one of the most advanced GSK-3β inhibitors in clinical development. Elraglusib was originally known as 9-ING-41 but was granted the elraglusib International Nonproprietary Names (“INN”) and United States Adopted Names (“USAN”) generic name in 2021. The known major mechanisms of action of elraglusib are summarized in Figure 4 and emphasize the therapeutic potential of this drug in multiple cancer types. For these reasons, elraglusib represents a “pipeline in a molecule” depending on the dosage form and how it is used in a particular cancer type. Our lead development program is seeking to treat mPDAC in combination with GnP. Our clinical data to date and the development plan are also further discussed below.

Elraglusib may exert anticancer activity through a variety of mechanisms that may be context and cancer type specific. For example, GSK-3β mediates signaling of oncogenic PI-3K but if this oncogene is not expressed in a particular tumor, this would not be a pathway that could be targeted by elraglusib in that tumor. Potential antitumor activity through GSK-3β inhibition may occur through the following six mechanisms of action (see Figure 3 below):

Figure 3: Elraglusib mechanisms of action.

GSK-3β plays an important role in immune cell function, as inhibition of GSK-3β can facilitate immune cell expansion, differentiation and activation including T and natural killer (“NK”) cells. GSK-3β inhibition increases the ability of effector T cells to kill tumors in vivo through the induction of effector proteins granzyme B and FasL in gastric cancer models. Additionally, inhibition of GSK-3β, with both small molecules and small interfering RNA (“siRNA”), downregulates programmed cell death protein 1 (“PD-1”) expression in CD8 and cytolytic T cells and enhances their function. GSK-3β inhibition also lowers PD-1 expression and promotes long-term survival and generation of memory CAR-T cells in vivo. These memory T cells enabled 100% clearance of cancer cells after rechallenging during tumor remission. Recently, inhibition of GSK-3β with small molecules was shown to reduce the expression of T cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domain (“TIGIT”) and lymphocyte activation gene-3 (“LAG-3”), additional immune system suppressing molecules that work in concert with PD-L1 (Programmed Death-Ligand 1) to reduce anti-tumor surveillance by the system. Combining GSK-3β inhibition and LAG-3 blockade significantly enhanced clearance of melanoma tumors compared to either treatment alone. LAG-3 was recently validated as a cancer therapeutic target when the first anti-LAG-3 antibody, relatlimab, was approved in March 2022 by the FDA for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Blocking GSK-3 in NK cells leads to enrichment of mature NK cells and primes them for enhanced cytokine production and anti-tumor function in vivo. GSK-3β expression was increased in the NK cells of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”) and inhibition of GSK-3β led to increased cell directed cytotoxicity in these patient-derived samples. Inhibition of GSK-3 also decreased LAG-3 expression on NK cells.

GSK-3β activity has also been tied to transforming growth factor β (“TGF-β”) expression. TGF-β released by cancer cells, stromal fibroblasts and other cells in the tumor microenvironment further promotes cancer progression by shaping the architecture of the tumor and by suppressing the anti-tumor activities of immune cells, thus generating an immunosuppressive environment that prevents or attenuates the efficacy of anticancer immunotherapies. Therefore, blocking GSK-3β may reduce TGF-β-mediated immunosuppression.

Elraglusib has now been demonstrated to decrease expression of PD-1, TIGIT and LAG-3 and to enhance the anti-tumor effects of anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition in animal tumor models. Thus, elraglusib blockade of GSK-3β activity may improve immune response to tumors by augmenting the responsiveness of a patient’s immune system in addition to the direct anti-tumor effects of elraglusib within the cancer cells themselves.

Inhibition of GSK-3β leads to inhibition of tumor cell proliferation. This has been shown in multiple tumor model systems using elraglusib. A number of pathways have been implicated in the inhibition of cell proliferation mediated by GSK-3 inhibitors including MYC, Cyclin D1, TGFα, epidermal growth factor receptor, Ras, PI3K/Akt, and NF-κB. Given GSK-3’s role as an adapter of multiple signaling pathways, elraglusib may exert its antiproliferative effects through the inhibition of one or more of these pathways.

A chronic inflammatory microenvironment is conducive to tumorigenesis (e.g., pancreatitis patients are known to have increased risk of pancreatic cancer) and tumors can undergo EMT, leading to increased metastasis, under inflammatory conditions. Moreover, several profibrotic cytokines (e.g., TGF-β, TNF-α and IL-1) are secreted by inflammatory cells and tumor cells and converge to activate pathways that regulate EMT. Further, GSK-3β has also been demonstrated to be a mediator of EMTs. Therefore, the inflammatory response designed to fight tumor progression also ends up promoting metastasis and tumor-associated fibrosis. Tumor fibrosis presents multiple challenges to drug delivery and tumor immune recognition and contributes to drug resistance by presenting physical barriers in the tumor microenvironment to drug and immune cell access. Elraglusib has been shown to reduce the inflammation and signaling that contribute to immune system evasion in multiple animal models, including lung and liver, suggesting another mechanism through which elraglusib may interfere in cancer growth.

GSK-3 inhibits apoptosis pathways. A number of studies have suggested that the primary mechanism of GSK-3-mediated apoptosis is through the NF-κB pathway. Apoptosis is a mechanism of cell death that is often suppressed in cancer cells leading to cancer cell survival and resistance even after treatment with chemotherapeutic drugs or radiation. Studies have shown that eliminating or inhibiting GSK-3β in cancer cells is able to restore apoptosis to cells, leading to tumor cell death. These findings support GSK-3β as a potential therapeutic target to potentiate apoptosis in cancer cells.

In addition to GSK-3β’s role in regulating NF-κB activity, it has also been shown to modulate DNA damage repair (“DDR”) pathways. DDR pathways are integral in both normal and cancer cells to maintain genomic integrity by sensing and responding to DNA damage. In normal cells, DDR helps to identify and repair mutations or breaks in DNA and restore the normal, intact sequence. If the cell is unable to repair a DNA lesion, these DDR pathways can then initiate cell death signaling to prevent neoplastic growth. In cancer, DNA repair has been subverted to protect tumor cells from repairing DNA damage that would otherwise lead to spontaneous apoptosis. Cancers will often have mutations in at least one DNA repair pathways leading to dysregulated cell growth and replication. Our collaborators have shown that elraglusib inhibition of GSK-3β sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine by disrupting TopBP1/ATR mediated cell-cycle arrest and DNA repair. GSK-3β’s emerging role in regulating DDR pathways supports its use in combination with DNA damaging chemotherapy.

Inhibition of DDR pathways have also been shown to enhance tumor immune recognition by immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-PD-1, creating neoantigens in tumors that lead to recruitment of tumor infiltrating immune cells, decreased immune evasion and increased anti-tumor immune response. This provides the link that couples the various elraglusib-related mechanisms of action through the targeting of GSK-3.

GSK-3β has been shown to be a mediator of a number of signaling pathways that regulate the transition of tumor cells from an epithelial to mesenchymal phenotype potentially contributing to tumor progression, a process known as EMT. Signaling through Wnt, Notch, TGF-β and Snail are known mediators of EMT and their signaling is regulated through GSK-3β. Several toolkit GSK-3β inhibitors have been shown to inhibit EMT in tumor models suggesting that this is a class effect and highlighting a similar mechanism for elraglusib.

Our Solution – Current Elraglusib Development

Elraglusib represents a broad opportunity for us to potentially initiate and advance multiple drug development programs around our lead asset based on data emerging from completed or ongoing Phase 1/2 trials. Our lead program is developing Elraglusib Injection for the first-line treatment of mPDAC. mPDAC remains one of the highest unmet needs in oncology as the 5-year survival rate for PDAC (<10%) is one of the lowest of any cancer type. 

Developing Elraglusib Injection for the Treatment of mPDAC – Phase 2 Studies

Actuate-1801 Part 3B

We are currently evaluating elraglusib through the second part of a Phase 2 study, referred to as Actuate-1801 Part 3B, which was initiated under the Actuate-1801 Master Protocol in patients with mPDAC who had not previously received systemic treatment for their metastatic disease.

This study was designed as a randomized, controlled study with a run-in to explore two different dosing schedules of elraglusib/GnP (once weekly vs. twice weekly) in the hope of potentially providing clinical support for moving to a more convenient, commercially viable elraglusib schedule. Pharmacokinetics were also included in this study to address the potential for drug-drug interactions (“DDI”) between elraglusib and gemcitabine or nab-paclitaxel. Management believes that confirmation of the Actuate-1801 Part 3A result discussed below in an adequately powered, randomized study, would compare favorably with the recently approved irinotecan liposomal injection and would complement the other first-line regimens currently used to treat mPDAC and provide a basis for approval for use in patients with mPDAC who had not previously received systemic treatment for their metastatic disease.

Actuate-1801 Part 3B enrolled its first patients in October 2021 and the run-in part of the trial demonstrated the weekly dosing of elraglusib was equivalent to twice weekly dosing of elraglusib. All patients randomized to the elraglusib/GnP arm now receive weekly elraglusib in addition to GnP. The trial accrued more readily than projected and enrollment was completed in January 2024. Below are the key inclusion criteria and clinical endpoints in the study:

Inclusion Criteria:

Endpoints:

We conducted a preliminary analysis of interim data in the pre-specified safety population as of November 15, 2024. As with all preliminary analyses of interim data, this data should not be relied upon as a final analysis and is subject to change once full data analysis is complete. For this preliminary analysis, we used data based on a cut-off date corresponding to the date when >70% of death events occurred in the GnP control arm.

The analysis of interim data demonstrated treatment with elraglusib in combination with GnP resulted in statistically significant increases in 1-year survival rate (p-value of 0.002) and mOS (hazard ratio of 0.63, p-value of 0.016) versus treatment with GnP alone. The combination treatment also resulted in increased ORR and DCR in the elraglusib/GnP combination arm versus the GnP control arm. Interim data highlights include the following:

Figure 4 provides additional details regarding the demographics and disease history of the enrolled patient population (draft unaudited data as of November 15, 2024).

Figure 4: Actuate-1801 Part 3B: Demographics for patients in study (as of November 15, 2024).

Additional data from the preliminary analysis of interim data as of November 15, 2024 are shown in Figures 5 – 11. These figures represent draft unaudited data as of November 15, 2024 and the final data and results may change as the study continues through completion. As with all interim data, this data should not be relied upon as a final analysis and is subject to change once full data analysis is complete.

Figure 5 summarizes primary and secondary endpoints and patients remaining on study for each treatment arm as well as landmark OS endpoints of 18- and 24-months. A large number of patients are still on treatment with 38% still remaining on the elraglusib/GnP combination arm versus 19% still remaining on the GnP only arm as of November 15, 2024. This is also shown at the patient level for each treatment cohort in the swim plots in Figure 9 that show patients still on treatment, patients with a response including stable disease, and patients still on study as well as those that have reached an event. Interim safety data is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 5: Actuate-1801 Part 3B: Primary and secondary study endpoints (as of November 15, 2024).

Figure 6 below represents interim Kaplan-Meier estimate for mOS. The administrative analysis of interim data indicates that >80% of the patients in the GnP control arm progressed and were no longer receiving GnP.

Figure 6: Actuate-1801 Part 3B: Interim Kaplan-Meier Estimate for mOS (as of November 15, 2024).

Figure 7 below depicts the best overall response (“BOR”) of patients enrolled in the Phase 2 study (Actuate-1801 Part 3B) in the GnP control arm who received at least one radiographic scan.

Figure 7: Actuate-1801 Part 3B: GnP Best Overall Response (as of November 15, 2024).

Figure 8 below depicts the BOR of patients enrolled in the Phase 2 study (Actuate-1801 Part 3B) in the elraglusib/GnP combination arm who received at least one radiographic scan.

Figure 8: Actuate-1801 Part 3B: GnP/Elraglusib combination Best Overall Response (as of November 15, 2024).

Figure 9 below is a graphical representation of survival (“mOS Swim Plot’”) of patients enrolled in the Phase 2 study (Actuate-1801 Part 3B) in the elraglusib/GnP combination arm compared to the GnP control arm.

Figure 9:  Actuate-1801 Part 3B: Administrative Analysis of mOS Swim Plot (as of November 15, 2024).

This is an open-label study and therefore, the study could not be used to support accelerated approval which would be based on evaluation of surrogate endpoints.

Management expects top-line data will be presented in the second quarter of 2025 based on the completion of enrollment in January 2024.

At the conclusion of Phase 2 trial (Actuate-1801 Part 3B), we expect to have survival data on the elraglusib/GnP combination arm and GnP arm in patients with mPDAC who had not previously received systemic treatment for their metastatic disease. At the completion of this study, we plan to meet with the FDA and discuss the design and execution of a Phase 3 registration study, if justified by the results this study. In addition, we plan to discuss the use of the Actuate-1801 Part 3B data for regulatory support and to support possible registration if the study achieves its primary endpoint of showing improved survival over GnP alone. Moreover, while the elraglusib/GnP combination appears to be well-tolerated and well-managed in the clinic, we do not yet know whether any increase in the number or severity of toxicities will be attributable to elraglusib and thus the elraglusib/GnP combination will have its own safety profile that will need to be evaluated and discussed with regulators. Figure 11 is a summary of the safety events reported as of November 15, 2024.

Actuate-1801 Part 3A

Actuate-1801 Part 3A is a single arm Phase 2 trial that was initiated in patients with mPDAC who had not previously been treated with any systemic chemotherapy including GnP (first-line study) and which built on the results of Actuate-1801 Part 2 described below, allowing a comparison of the safety and efficacy of the combination of Elraglusib Injection plus GnP as compared to GnP alone. By moving our development into the first line setting, we increased our ability to deliver the elraglusib/GnP combination to many more patients since more than 70% of patients with mPDAC never go on to a second-line treatment once they have progression on first-line treatment. In addition, we believe that the safety profile of elraglusib/GnP provides a strong basis for testing this combination in first-line patients. We also received a number of commercialization incentives (e.g. ODD, FTD) through registration for pancreatic cancer including mPDAC. Results from the Actuate-1801 Part 3A study formed the basis for the initiation of Actuate-1801 Part 3B trial.

In Part 3A of the Phase 2 study under the Actuate-1801 Master Protocol, the efficacy evaluable (“EE”) patient population was pre-defined as the efficacy analysis population and the modified intent to treat (“mITT”) was the safety population. The elraglusib dose was started at the RP2D evaluated in Part 2 (15 mg/kg dosed twice weekly).

The original study design proposed to enroll 23 consecutively evaluable patients who met the definition for the EE. These patients could be replaced at the discretion of the independent data monitoring committee (“IDMC”). Consequently, six patients were replaced such that there were 29 EE patients in the study. No new safety signals were observed with the elraglusib/GnP combination, but investigators observed that GnP toxicities may have occurred earlier and may have been more intense in some patients than would be anticipated for GnP alone. For these reasons, the dose of elraglusib was proactively reduced near the end of the study to 9.3 mg/kg dosed twice weekly, with the final four patients enrolled being treated at this dose.

Figure 10 below is a summary of the response of patients with mPDAC treated with the elraglusib/GnP combination in Part 3A (data cutoff as of March 2023) in the 29 EE patients.

Figure 10: Response of EE patients with mPDAC treated with elraglusib/GnP combination in Part 3A (data cutoff as of March 2023).

The mOS for the EE and ITT were 15.3 months and 11.9 months, respectively. These compare favorably with the mOS for GnP alone of 8.5 months in the MPACT trial or more recently 9.2 months in NAPOLI-3 trial, which evaluated irinotecan liposomal injection (Onivyde®) in combination compared to GnP, in the first-line mPDAC setting.

Elraglusib Injection was initially evaluated in Actuate-1801 Part 1/2, a dose escalation study in adult patients with refractory advanced cancers when given as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to establish the safety profile of elraglusib when used alone or in combination with chemotherapy and to identify either an MTD or RP2D to then inform the design of exploratory efficacy studies in Phase 2. Figure 14, which shows the study design process, and additional information regarding Actuate 1801 Master Protocol and potential future development opportunities (for which funding would need to be raised) identified through Actuate 1801 Parts 1 and 2 are set forth under “History of Elraglusib Clinical Development” below.

Overview of Interim Safety Profile from Phase 2 Trial (Actuate-1801 Part 3B)

Figure 11 provides safety data as of November 15, 2024 from the Actuate-1801 Part 3B trial. TEAEs broadly encompass all adverse events observed while a patient is on study and could be due to the drug or drugs (if used in combination), the disease or something specific to a particular patient such as other diseases or illness. It is then up to individual clinical investigator to decide which toxicities are due to elraglusib. The most common TEAEs attributed to elraglusib were transient visual disturbance and fatigue across both study parts, and the majority of TEAEs that occurred in ≥ 20% of patients were reported as Grade 1 or 2 (Figure 11). Visual disturbance affected 66.5% of patients (n=103/155) receiving elraglusib plus GnP and 9.0% of patients (n=7/78) receiving GnP alone. Commonly reported symptoms were darkened vision, where patients described lights as brighter and skin tones darker. Greater than 99% of visual disturbance cases were reported as mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2). These visual disturbances were considered dose-dependent, occurring more frequently and lasting longer at higher doses. All cases of visual disturbance were transient, resolved completely, and lacked any associated retinal, ocular, or systemic toxicity. Fatigue, while also observed in ≥ 20% of patients, was also reported as mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2) and did not interfere with daily life.

Some of the key findings from the interim safety analysis as of November 15, 2024 include:

Figure 11 below is a summary of TEAEs of any grade reported in >20% of patients treated with elraglusib as of November 15, 2024 in Actuate 1801 Part 3B (trial ongoing).

Figure 11: Actuate 1801 Part 3B: TEAEs of Any Grade Reported in >20% of Patients Treated with Elraglusib.

Investigator-Initiated Trial – PDAC

Elraglusib is also currently being evaluated in an IIT focusing on adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. IND 157435, a Phase 2 study of FOLFIRINOX combined with elraglusib and the TGF-β inhibitor losartan in patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma is being conducted by Dr. Colin Weekes (the “Weekes IIT”). This study administers elraglusib by intravenous infusion twice weekly in combination with FOLFIRINOX administered once every 14 days and daily losartan in adults with pancreatic cancer who have not received any prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. As of December 31, 2024, 57 patients have been enrolled in the Weekes IIT and the study is ongoing.

We will receive all final data from this study, which is considered exploratory and may inform future development of elraglusib. For additional information regarding other IITs involving elraglusib, see additional information below.

Developing Elraglusib Injection for the Treatment of Ewing Sarcoma – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Plans – Actuate-1902

As discussed under “Our Market Opportunity” above, based on extensive preclinical work in pediatric malignancies showing excellent synergy between elraglusib and standard of care chemotherapy in neuroblastoma, sarcoma, glioma and others, we initiated the Actuate-1902 Phase 1 study to determine the safety of elraglusib +/- chemotherapy in pediatric patients with refractory malignancies in 2020. Based on the response from the Ewing sarcoma patient, additional patients with metastatic, refractory Ewing and Ewing-like sarcoma were enrolled in the elraglusib/CT arm of the 1902 Phase 1 study.

Twelve patients including ten Ewing sarcoma patients, one DSRCT patient and one CIC rearranged sarcoma patient have been treated in the Actuate-1902 Phase 1 trial with a combination of elraglusib and cyclophosphamide/topotecan. All twelve patients appeared to have metastatic disease and had disease progression prior to joining the study despite undergoing previous treatment combinations including chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgical procedures. Eight patients received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens, prior to entering the 1902 study. The following represents the status of Actuate-1902 Phase 1 trial as of December 31, 2024:

We believe that this exploratory Ewing sarcoma data is sufficiently positive in this orphan pediatric cancer indication to consider additional development and treatment options in Ewing sarcoma. The Actuate-1902 Phase 1 arm of the study is open to accrual.

With future funding, and pending 1902 data review at the end of Phase 1, we plan to evaluate additional treatment options focusing on patients with Ewing sarcoma.

Given that Ewing sarcoma is a very rare pediatric cancer, an international consortium of investigators and sites will be needed to advance this program to registration. In addition, we plan to pursue a number of development incentives in the United States and parallel programs in the EU. In July 2024, we received ODD from the FDA for elraglusib for the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas in the United States and Orphan Medical Product Designation from the EMA for the treatment of sarcoma. In October 2024, we received RPDD from the FDA for the treatment of Ewings sarcoma. The ability to engage in further development in pediatric cancers will depend on our ability to raise sufficient additional capital to support this path. We believe that pursuing this development could be an efficient and rapid path to registration in the United States and Marketing Authorization in the EU.

Elraglusib Oral Tablet Development - Actuate-2203 and Actuate-2401

We have been developing several oral dosage forms of elraglusib in addition to Elraglusib Injection that will potentially allow for further dose exploration and potentially allow us to evaluate elraglusib as a single agent and in combination with additional chemotherapy backbones. We believe that we will be able to administer the Elraglusib Oral Tablet daily, which may allow the drug to achieve steady state levels in plasma in patients resulting in continuous inhibition of the target GSK-3 in tumor and tumor-associated cells.

Preclinical studies have shown that persistent exposure of tumor cells (>12 hours but longer exposures work better) is required to observe induction of apoptosis in these tumor cell line models. Both the liquid and solid oral dosage forms of elraglusib are highly bioavailable. However, we have chosen to advance the Elraglusib Oral Tablet into clinical development based on an assessment of potential compliance, convenience of use and taste that favor the Oral Tablet. Investigational product has already been manufactured under Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) standards, and we are planning a First in Human (“FIH”) Phase 1 clinical trial (Actuate-2401). Subject to additional funding, we plan to initiate a dose escalation Phase 1 trial in patients with advanced solid cancer to identify the MTD/RP2D for the Elraglusib Oral Tablet. Our development plan would then be to pursue Phase 2 indications such as metastatic melanoma, metastatic colorectal cancer and/or non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”) using the oral tablet. We would require additional funds to initiate and complete these Phase 2 studies.

An oral liquid was evaluated for bioavailability in a Phase 1 healthy volunteer study (Actuate-2203) at a single dose using a cross-over design such that each subject on the study received IV, oral liquid after fasting and oral liquid with food. Elraglusib oral liquid was approximately 50% bioavailable when given with food and was very well tolerated by healthy volunteers, as depicted in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Bioavailability of Elraglusib Oral Liquid in Phase 1 Human Healthy Volunteer Study.

The oral liquid and several oral tablets formulations were also evaluated for bioavailability in dogs and an oral tablet candidate was identified that was greater than 95% orally bioavailable when given with food. For the first time, an MTD was identified with any formulation or dosing schedule of elraglusib. In the past, elraglusib had been given up to 3 times a week in animal toxicology studies to cover twice weekly and once weekly dosing of Elraglusib Injection in the Actuate-1801 and Actuate-1902 studies, but never daily. In the study, the oral drug had an AUC24 (Area Under the serum Concentration vs. time curve for 0-24 hours) of 77,000 ng•h/mL (nanograms times hours per milliliter) after a single 250 mg oral tablet and 137,000 ng•h/mL after oral administration of 500 mg (2 x 250 mg tablets) as shown in Figure 13. The 500 mg dose demonstrated toxicity and was not tolerated by dogs but the 250 mg dose was well-tolerated when given daily for 28 days in this exploratory study. This simulated the expected daily dosing that we would plan to use in our FIH Phase 1 study. The 25 mg/kg daily dose in dogs corresponds to approximately the 9.3 mg/kg weekly dose currently being used in the Actuate-1801 Part 3B study when scaled from dog to humans. Our management expects that steady state exposures of 77,000 ng•h/mL or greater will be possible with the Elraglusib Oral Tablet at well-tolerated doses in humans. Based on these observations, we would expect to also reach MTD in the Elraglusib Oral Tablet Phase 1 study in patients with refractory advanced cancer.

We believe this will allow for additional opportunities to explore the anti-tumor activity of elraglusib with the oral tablet that could not be achieved with Elraglusib Injection. While the weekly dosing of the Elraglusib Injection pairs well with GnP since both are given once per week, the oral tablet may be more amenable to use with other, less convenient chemotherapies, as well as a single agent.

Figure 13: Bioavailability of Elraglusib Injection compared to Oral Tablet in Dogs.

History of Elraglusib Clinical Development

Figure 14 is a graphical depiction of the Actuate-1801 Master Protocol and study design process, followed by a discussion of the history of elraglusib clinical development that led to finding that elraglusib plus GnP was well-tolerated in pre-treated cancer patients and selecting previously untreated mPDAC as our lead indication.

Figure 14: 1801 Master Protocol Study Design

Actuate-1801 Phase 1/2 Clinical Study

We developed an innovative Phase 1/2 adaptive design “basket” clinical study to efficiently evaluate elraglusib safety and initial anti-tumor activity across multiple tumor types. This trial design facilitated the rapid advancement of elraglusib through dose escalation and safety cohorts while later establishing a process for transition into Phase 2 efficacy studies in patient populations that showed evidence of anti-tumor activity during the safety portion of the study. Elraglusib has been dosed in over 500 patients to date both as a single agent and in combination.

The study design consists of three parts. Part 1 and Part 2 consist of the evaluation of the safety and tolerability of elraglusib to determine the MTD and RP2D as both a monotherapy and in combination with various chemotherapy regimens. Part 1 and 2 involve dose escalation of elraglusib to identify either the MTD or RP2D if an MTD cannot be achieved. These were run in tandem and interdigitated. Initial dose escalation was performed using single agent elraglusib (Part 1), but once Part 1 opened the fourth dose level, Part 2 was allowed to open at the third dose level in combination with the chemotherapy backbones evaluated. Dose escalation was then continued for Part 1 and 2 in tandem until MTD or RP2D were identified, with Part 2 always being one dose level behind Part 1. A key design element of Part 2 is that all subjects enrolled in a chemotherapy basket must have previously failed that chemotherapy such that each patient was re-challenged by a drug to which they are resistant. Thus, each patient acts as their own control since any disease control must be due to the combination. In Part 2, six dose levels of elraglusib were evaluated across eight different chemotherapy baskets. Part 3 is designed to assess the clinical benefit of elraglusib at the RP2D from Part 2 in combination with chemotherapy in specific cancer populations.

Between January 2019 and August 2021, patients participating in the Actuate-1801 Part 1 and Part 2 study received at least one dose of elraglusib as monotherapy (n=67; Part 1) or in combination with chemotherapy (n=171; Part 2). Twenty-one different cancer types were enrolled in Part 1. On average, patients had received and failed at least three previous lines of chemotherapy regimens. No dose-limiting toxicities (“DLTs”) related to elraglusib occurred in either Part 1 or Part 2. Since the MTD was not reached in either part of the study, 15 mg/kg, the pre-specified highest dose evaluated in both Actuate-1801 Part 1 and 2, was named the RP2D. The chemotherapy backbone and cancer types involved in the study included:

Parts 1 and 2 comprised the Phase 1 portion of the Actuate-1801 trial and the results of this study were recently published in Clinical Cancer Research (Carneiro et. al 2024). 

Despite the fact that the patients enrolled on the Actuate-1801 study had previously received and failed multiple chemotherapy regimens, the mOS was 7.7 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.7) for elraglusib monotherapy (Part 1) and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.7-8.9) for the combination of elraglusib and chemotherapy (Part 2) across all the different chemotherapy baskets. The mOS of 7.7 months in Part 1 benchmarks favorably with mOS 8-10 months for other active single agents evaluated in Phase 1. CR, PR and stable disease (“SD”) were determined using RECIST 1.1. Only evaluable patients as defined per the Actuate-1801 Master Protocol experiencing stable disease ≥4 cycles of treatment are counted as “stable.” Our management believes that 51.6% of patients in Actuate-1801 Part 1 and 49.3% in Actuate-1801 Part 2 with a response or stable disease who are able to stay on for at least four cycles of treatment is encouraging given the advanced and treatment-refractory nature of their cancers.

Figure 15 below is a summary of the best overall response of elraglusib as monotherapy (Part 1) and in combination with chemotherapy (Part 2).

Figure 15: Best overall response of elraglusib as monotherapy (Part 1) and in combination with chemotherapy (Part 2)

To further demonstrate that elraglusib shows single agent anti-tumor activity, an analysis was conducted regarding tumor size reduction and tumor tissue for the expression (presence) of GSK-3β (as the target for elraglusib) using a validated immunohistochemical method.

Of the patients evaluated for a tumor size reduction response, 15 out of 51 demonstrated tumor size reduction even if they did not reach a level of reduction associated with a RECIST response. Our management believes that the reason for this response is the administration of elraglusib since it is the only anticancer drug given in this part of the trial. Of the enrolled patients in Part 1, 16 patients had rapid clinical deterioration related to their disease. These patients were unable to stay on treatment long enough to reach their first tumor assessment and are therefore not included in the Part 1 analyses as per the protocol. Several tumor types are represented with clinical data in Part 1 including melanoma, colorectal, appendix, and lung, providing initial rationale for future studies in these cancer types.

Tumor tissues from both Actuate-1801 Part 1 and Part 2 were analyzed for the expression (presence) of GSK-3β using a validated immunohistochemical method. Archival and fresh pre-dose samples of tumor tissue were analyzed with 59.4% of tumor samples in Part 1 and >80% of samples in Part 2 immunostaining positive for GSK-3β, demonstrating that the target for elraglusib is present in a large portion of tumors across all the cancer types enrolled in this study. Our management believes that this broad expression of GSK-3β supports the development of elraglusib in several different cancer types.

As the Actuate-1801 study was ongoing, studies in preclinical tumor models from several collaborating laboratories that were evaluating elraglusib reported that elraglusib was also able to regulate expression of immune checkpoints such as PD-1/PD-L1, LAG-3 and TIGIT. The data further credentialed GSK-3β as a novel target for mediating anti-tumor immunity, which had been reported by a number of groups over the past decade, and demonstrated the potential for immune checkpoint modulatory activity for elraglusib. These were novel observations for elraglusib in addition to previously described roles in attenuating anti-apoptotic activity, NF-κB and DDR mediated drug resistance and enhancing chemotherapy and suggested that elraglusib may inhibit tumor progression through multiple mechanisms of action.

Circulating tumor cells isolated from a patient with adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma (“ATLL”) in the Actuate-1801 study (Part 1) who experienced a durable PR (406 days) while on single agent elraglusib also exhibited robust cytokine changes when treated with elraglusib ex vivo. Further, Huntington et al² showed that plasma from elraglusib-treated patients in the Actuate-1801 Part 1 clinical study demonstrated reduced VEGF and BAFF and elevated IL-1β, CCL22, and CCL4 concentrations that correlated with longer survival. Using paired tumor biopsies from patients in the Actuate-1801 study, Huntington et al also showed that tumor-infiltrating immune cells had reduced expression of inhibitory immune checkpoints (VISTA, PD-1, PD-L2) and elevated expression of T cell activation markers (CTLA-4, OX40L) after elraglusib treatment.

Taken together, our management believes that these early studies further support elraglusib’s multimodal mechanism of action including immune modulation and inhibition of immune evasion. Given that a number of recent reports have highlighted that drugs that modulate anti-tumor immune response may improve mOS with little or no effect on ORR, we re-analyzed all the Actuate-1801 Part 1 and 2 data with respect to OS.

Support for planned Phase 2 indications is provided by data extracted from Actuate-1801 Part 1 in patients with metastatic melanoma. Actuate-1801 Part 1 enrolled 11 patients with metastatic melanoma who received only single agent elraglusib and demonstrated an mOS of 9.1 months, which compares favorably to the mOS of 6.9 months for salvage chemotherapy in a similar patient population. Our management believes that we have potentially identified a method for enriching patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors but may benefit from elraglusib. Patient selection and enrichment could improve the probability of success in a future Phase 2 trial in melanoma. These 11 Actuate-1801 Part 1 patients were refractory to several lines of treatment including immune checkpoint inhibitors and would typically be candidates for chemotherapy salvage with an expected mOS of 6.9 months based on a meta-analysis of many different chemotherapy regimens tested in the salvage setting in this patient population. In Actuate-1801 Part 1, one metastatic melanoma patient with widely metastatic disease to the brain, lungs, bones, muscles, stomach, lymph nodes, pancreas and adrenal glands received Elraglusib Injection as a single agent. This patient was refractory to all FDA-approved standard therapies, including several checkpoint inhibitors and a BRAF/MEK inhibitor. This patient reported a partial response at 6 weeks and after 12 weeks on elraglusib, the patient’s brain MRI showed a CR by RANO criteria and a PET scan showed CMR for other lesions. This patient continues to have a durable CMR ongoing (>5.5 years as of November 15, 2024) and continues to receive the investigational drug elraglusib. A second melanoma patient who received single agent elraglusib has ongoing stable disease and was still alive for 3.1 years as of last documented alive date. This patient also failed all FDA-approved standard therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors and several experimental treatments. These are extraordinary results and should not be considered representative of all patients or all outcomes.

Similarly, Actuate-1801 Part 2 data in the irinotecan chemotherapy basket identified metastatic colorectal (in combination with irinotecan) as another potential Phase 2 indication for elraglusib based on mOS of 6.9 months for patients who were heavily pre-treated and refractory to chemotherapy. This compares favorably with expected mOS of less than 3 months for this same patient population treated with salvage chemotherapy or best supportive care.

Safety in Actuate-1801 Part 1 and 2

In both Parts 1 and 2, all patients experienced TEAEs. TEAEs broadly encompass all adverse events observed while a patient is on study and could be due to the drug or drugs (if used in combination), the disease or something specific to a particular patient such as other diseases or illness. It is then up to the individual clinical investigator to decide which toxicities are due to elraglusib. The most common TEAEs attributed to elraglusib were transient visual disturbance and fatigue across both study parts, and the majority of TEAEs that occurred in ≥ 20% of patients were reported as Grade 1 or 2. Visual disturbance affected 50.7% of patients (n=34/67) receiving elraglusib monotherapy and 60.8% of patients (n=104/171) receiving elraglusib with chemotherapy. Commonly reported symptoms were darkened vision, where patients described lights as brighter and skin tones appearing darker. Greater than 99% of visual disturbance cases were reported as mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2). These visual disturbances were considered dose-dependent, occurring more frequently and lasting longer at higher doses. All cases of visual disturbance were transient, resolved completely, and lacked any associated retinal, ocular, or systemic toxicity. Fatigue, while also observed in ≥ 20% of patients, was also reported as mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2) and did not interfere with daily life.

____________________

² Huntington KE, Louie AD, Srinivasan PR, Schorl C, Lu S, Silverberg D, Newhouse D, Wu Z, Zhou L, Borden BA, Giles FJ, Dooner M, Carneiro BA, El-Deiry WS. GSK-3 Inhibitor Elraglusib Enhances Tumor-Infiltrating Immune Cell Activation in Tumor Biopsies and Synergizes with Anti-PD-L1 in a Murine Model of Colorectal Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Jun 29;24(13):10870.

Other IIT

In addition to the company sponsored trials and the Weekes IIT referenced above, elraglusib is currently being evaluated in an additional IIT. We track patient accrual and SAEs in these trials and report these to our IND.

IND 156280 is a Phase 2 study of elraglusib plus carboplatin in patients with advanced, metastatic salivary gland carcinoma being conducted by Dr. Glenn J. Hanna. This study administered elraglusib by intravenous infusion twice weekly in combination with carboplatin administered once every 21 days in adults with incurable, recurrent or metastatic salivary gland carcinomas. A total of 32 patients were enrolled and this study is now completed. Final data analysis is ongoing and the study has been submitted for presentation at the AACR Annual Meeting 2025 with a final data report anticipated by the end of 2025. The elraglusib dose used in this study is lower than the levels recommended by our studies.

License Agreements

Northwestern University License Agreement

We licensed the exclusive worldwide rights to materials and non-exclusive rights to certain know-how relating to the use for therapeutic, diagnostic and commercial research purposes of elraglusib and related compounds in cancer and combination therapies from NU pursuant to that certain royalty-free license agreement between us and NU dated March 31, 2015, as amended on April 29, 2019 (as amended, the “NU License Agreement”).

Pursuant to the NU License Agreement, NU granted us (i) a nonexclusive license to certain technical information developed in the laboratory of Dr. Mazar, and (ii) an exclusive license to all results obtained by Dr. Mazar and his collaborators at NU on the use of the GSK-3β inhibitor 9-ING-41 and related compounds used for the treatment of cancer and combination therapies. The term of the NU License Agreement continues in effect until the expiration of the last to expire of patent rights covering 9-ING-41 and related GSK-3 inhibitors (see the discussion under “Intellectual Property” below for a discussion of our expected patent terms), unless earlier terminated by NU due to our making a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by or against us or the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession of our property, or by either party following 90 days’ notice of a material breach of the NU License Agreement that is not then cured. The NU License Agreement terms are subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act, including requiring us to substantially manufacture products related to the license in the United States, unless waived. While the drug substance (“DS”) for elraglusib is manufactured by a supplier in China, the end drug product is substantially manufactured in the United States.

In consideration of the license granted by NU, we issued 27,778 shares of our common stock to NU, which represented 5% of our then-outstanding fully-diluted shares and agreed to customary confidentiality and progress update obligations and to indemnify NU for any claims arising from our use of the licensed rights under the NU License Agreement.

UIC Exclusive License Agreement with Equity

The exclusive rights to Patent Rights (as defined in the UIC License Agreement and described further below) and Technical Information (as defined in the UIC License Agreement) surrounding GSK-3 inhibitors for Neurodegenerative Disorders were licensed through an Exclusive License Agreement with Equity between us and UIC, dated April 6, 2015, as amended on April 24, 2019 (as amended, the “UIC License Agreement”). Under the UIC License Agreement, the Patent Rights relate to certain patents relating to 3-Benzofuranyl-4-Indolyl Maleimides, the last of which is scheduled to expire on March 16, 2028, not including any Patent Term Extension (“PTE”), which we may apply for under Title II of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (“Hatch-Waxman”), 35 U.S.C. §156. The following summarizes the key terms set forth in the UIC License Agreement. 

Pursuant to the UIC License Agreement, UIC granted us (i) an exclusive, nontransferable license, with the right to sublicense under UIC’s rights in the Patent Rights, and (ii) a non-exclusive, non-transferable license, with the right to sublicense, to use UIC’s rights in the Technical Information within the specified territory (which is where the Patent Rights exist for such rights and worldwide for the Technical Information) for all uses other than rights reserved by UIC for non-commercial purposes, including teaching, research and public service and publishing information included in the Patent Rights and the Technical Information. The term of the UIC License Agreement continues in effect until the later of (x) expiration of the last to expire of the Patent Rights, (y) notice from us that the use of the Technical Information has ceased, and (z) the expiration of the last form of market exclusivity for products using the licensed technology. The UIC License Agreement may also be earlier terminated by UIC in the event of certain breaches of its terms that are not cured following a notice period or initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by or against us or the imposition of any lien or encumbrance on the licensed technology. We may also terminate the UIC License Agreement for any reason following 90 days’ notice.

In consideration of the license granted under the UIC License Agreement, we issued 46,528 shares of our common stock to UIC, which represented 5% of our capital stock on a fully diluted basis as defined in the UIC License Agreement, and agreed to pay UIC (i) development milestones of up to $1.25 million, of which, up to $0.25 million is due upon the progress of clinical trials and $1.0 million is due upon the initiation of commercial sales (ii) annual minimum royalty payments of $5,000 beginning on the three-year anniversary of the UIC License Agreement and increasing to $15,000 in year four, $35,000 in year five, and $50,000 in year six and thereafter, (iii) royalty on net sales for product covered under the Patent Rights in the low single digits with a 50% reduction in royalties for products solely utilizing Technical Information, (iv) a declining percentage of sublicensing revenue based on the escalating stage of development upon a sublicensing event, and (v) the reimbursement of all patent and related expenses incurred by UIC covering the Patent Rights. We also agreed to customary confidentiality and progress update obligations, to indemnify UIC for any claims arising from our use of the licensed rights under the UIC License Agreement.

The UIC License Agreement obligates us or a sublicensee to commercialize the licensed technology, including to achieve the development events specified in the agreement, including progress through clinical trials and achieving commercialization. UIC may also identify feasible uses of the licensed technology and, unless we demonstrate that we are pursuing such development or such development is not feasible within a specified period, UIC may terminate the UIC License Agreement or the exclusivity of the licensed rights. As of the date hereof, we have met all existing milestones as provided for in the UIC License Agreement. We are also responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents, at our expense and using commercially reasonable efforts. We have the sole right to enforce the licensed patents, at our expense. The UIC License Agreement terms are subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act, including requiring us to substantially manufacture products related to the license in the United States, unless waived. While the DS for elraglusib is manufactured by a supplier in China, the end drug product is substantially manufactured in the United States.

In addition, we entered into a sublicense and collaboration agreement dated August 28, 2017 with an unrelated entity that was covered under the UIC License Agreement, which sublicense agreement was later terminated on January 31, 2018. Under the UIC License Agreement, the Company owed UIC a certain percentage of amounts received under the sublicense agreement in the amount of $449,990. The Company paid UIC 10% of the sublicense fees in the amount of $44,999 and the remaining unpaid balance of $404,991 (“Deferred Amount”) was originally due and payable to UIC in two installments: 50% due and payable on the one-year anniversary from the first commercial sale and 50% due on the second-year anniversary from the first commercial sale. The Deferred Amount is treated as debt and continues to accrue interest at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum, representing the prime rate as of the date of the agreement plus 1%. On July 16, 2024, the Company and UIC entered an amendment to the UIC License Agreement (“UIC Amendment”). Pursuant to the UIC Amendment, accrued interest is due and payable in two installments: (i) 50% was due within 30 days following the closing of the Company’s IPO; and (ii) 50% is due within 30 days following the first anniversary of the closing of the IPO. Thereafter, interest will be paid annually within 30 days following the second anniversary of the closing of the IPO and annually thereafter. In addition, the UIC Amendment provides for payment of the Deferred Amount and any accrued interest thereon upon the sooner of (i) termination of the UIC License Agreement by the Company, (ii) the Company ceases development of the licensed UIC technology, (iii) the Company consummates a Change in Control (as defined in the UIC License Agreement), (iv) the Company sublicenses the licensed technology or the developed product, (v) the one-year anniversary following approval of a NDA of a licensed product, or (vii) the Company executes a partnership agreement with any entity resulting in the payment to us above a specified milestone amount or the Company secures cumulative financing equal to or exceeding $200 million. In addition, the UIC Amendment provides that to the extent the Company secures equity financing equal to or exceeding $85 million through its IPO or otherwise, 50% of the Deferred Amount is due and payable within 30 days. The remaining 50% of the Deferred Amount shall be due and payable upon the first to occur of any of the events noted above in clauses (i) through (vii). Finally, the UIC Amendment provides that for as long as the Company or a sublicensee is selling the licensed product, the Company will pay all consideration provided for in the original UIC License Agreement and described above until the last to expire market exclusivity date, the period of which for all products in a jurisdiction will not exceed a total of seven (7) years beginning with the date regulatory approval is granted for the first licensed product in the jurisdiction, and such obligation will survive termination of the UIC License Agreement.

Interest payable to UIC was $77,725 as of December 31, 2024, of which $70,957 is classified as current and $6,768 is classified as non-current, and are included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. At December 31, 2023, accrued interest to UIC was $130,041, which is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Collaboration Agreement

We entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Lantern Pharma in 2021 under which the parties are collaborating on utilization of Lantern Pharma’s platform to develop novel biomarker derived signatures for use with our product candidates. As part of the collaboration, Lantern Pharma received 13,889 restricted shares of our common stock, which vested upon meeting certain conditions of the collaboration, as well as the potential to receive additional shares if results from the collaboration are utilized in future development efforts. Our former director, Les Kreis, Jr., was a director of Lantern Pharma until June 8, 2022. Certain affiliates of the Bios Equity Affiliated Funds (as defined below), which is our largest stockholder, beneficially owned greater than 10% of Lantern Pharma’s common stock as of December 31, 2024. Through December 31, 2024, no revenue has been recognized by either party under this agreement. Mr. Kreis was not involved in the negotiation of this agreement and the negotiations were conducted at arm’s length.

Intellectual Property

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our product candidates and their methods of use and compositions of matter are an important part of our strategy to develop and commercialize novel medicines, as described in more detail below. Our policy is to file patent applications to protect technology, inventions and improvements to inventions that are commercially important to the development of our product candidates and our business. We seek U.S. and foreign patent protection for a variety of technologies. We also intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that may be used to discover and validate targets and identify and develop novel products. We seek protection, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements. We are a party to various other license agreements that give us rights to use specific technologies in our research and development.

As of December 31, 2024, we own or have licensed 88 issued patents and pending patent applications worldwide, including two pending international Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) patent applications and four U.S. provisional patent applications, which are material to the programs described in this Report. Three of these issued worldwide patents are owned by UIC, which has granted us exclusive license rights to the technology.

With respect to our elraglusib program, as of December 31, 2024, we own or exclusively in-license one patent family focused on the elraglusib molecule and/or related compounds. The exclusively in-licensed patent family for elraglusib and related compounds (the original patent in-licensed from UIC) includes one granted U.S. patent, one granted European patent (with validation in 5 countries) and one granted Canadian patent, which are directed to 3-Benzofuranyl-4-Indolyl Maleimides compounds. The U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2028.

Actuate subsequently discovered that elraglusib exists as one of only two polymorphs and filed composition of matter patents covering both polymorphs. The patent family covering “Polymorph I” is based on PCT/US2018/046203 9-ING-41 Polymorph I Composition of Matter and includes two granted patents in the U.S. (US 11,136,334 and 12,145,943) and Mexico, one granted patent in each of Australia, China, Europe (with validation in 18 countries), Japan, Israel, and South Korea, and pending patent applications in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Macao, South Korea, South Africa and the U.S., which are directed to a polymorph of a GSK-3β inhibitor, compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of preparing and uses for treating cancers. The U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2038.

The patent family we own that covers elraglusib “Polymorph II” is based on PCT/US2018/056083 9-ING-41 Polymorph II Composition of Matter and includes two granted U.S. patents (US 11,407,759 and 12,116,374), one granted patent in each of Australia, China, Mexico and Macao, and pending patent applications in Brazil, Canada, the European Patent Office, Israel, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and the U.S., which are directed to a polymorph of a GSK-3β inhibitor, compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of preparing and uses for treating cancers. The U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2038.

We intend to file additional patent applications for the liquid and solid formulations of these elraglusib compositions covering the liquid and solid oral dosage forms of elraglusib that we expect to develop.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent or as a result of delays in patent prosecution by the patentee, and a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in granting a patent. Patent term may also be extended up to five years due to regulatory delay (Patent Term Extension or “PTE”). We may apply for PTE under Title II of the Hatch-Waxman Act for any one of the U.S. Patents, however there is no guarantee that PTE would be granted for any patent.

We intend to continue to regularly assess opportunities for seeking patent protection for those aspects of our discoveries that we believe provide a meaningful competitive advantage. However, because patent filings can be time-consuming and expensive, our ability to do so may be limited until such time as we are able to generate cash flow from operations or otherwise raise sufficient capital to continue to invest in our intellectual property. For example, maintaining patents in the United States and other countries requires the payment of maintenance fees which, if we are unable to pay, may result in loss of our patent rights. If we are unable to do so, our ability to protect our intellectual property or prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights may be impaired.

Commercial Plan

We intend to retain significant development and commercialization rights to our product candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize our product candidates on our own, or potentially with a partner, in the United States and other regions. We currently have no sales, marketing and commercial product distribution capabilities. We intend to build the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time for the United States, and potentially other regions, in connection with the advancement of our product candidates. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs, the status of our pipeline and other factors, may all influence or alter our commercialization plans.

Manufacturing

We work with third-party suppliers and manufacturers to support the manufacturing of elraglusib for clinical studies and our research activities and, if we receive regulatory approval, we intend to rely on such third parties for commercial manufacture. We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish any manufacturing facilities. We currently obtain our investigational product from these third-party manufacturers on a purchase order basis and do not have any long-term supply agreements in place. In order to de-risk our supply chain, and as we advance toward potential commercialization, we may enter into long-term supply agreements as well as evaluate additional product manufacturing sources.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and the oncology sector in particular, are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property rights. While we believe that our development programs, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and potentially commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products.

Our most advanced clinical program is being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial as a first line treatment for mPDAC. The current standard first-line chemotherapies for mPDAC include GnP, FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin), and are associated with modest overall survival benefit.

We are presently developing elraglusib in combination with GnP as a first-line treatment for mPDAC. In addition, we are also supporting an ongoing IIT that may provide exploratory data on the combination of elraglusib and FOLFIRINOX as a first-line treatment for mPDAC. This may provide a rationale for developing elraglusib in combination with FOLFIRINOX or NALIRIFOX as another first-line treatment for mPDAC. Patients with mPDAC either have primary resistance to these chemotherapy backbones (e.g., do not respond at all when treated) or develop resistance quickly (responses with GnP, FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are transient and not very durable). Our management believes that elraglusib may improve outcomes in first-line mPDAC regardless of the chemotherapy backbone used, although the clinical data does not yet support this hypothesis. Nevertheless, since either GnP or FOLFIRINOX are used to treat >90% of patients with mPDAC and there is potential for combining elraglusib with either of these chemotherapy backbones based on our ongoing clinical studies, our management believes that elraglusib has the potential to treat a large segment of patients diagnosed with mPDAC. Thus, our plan is to develop elraglusib in combination with the present first-line chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of mPDAC, as exemplified by its lead program of elraglusib/GnP and later moving to combinations with either FOLFIRINOX or NALIRIFOX pending results of the IIT. If shown to be clinically meaningful, elraglusib chemotherapy combinations could eventually be used to treat a large segment of patients with mPDAC.

Several other targeted therapies are also being evaluated in Phase 3 in mPDAC. The panRAS inhibitor daraxonrasib (RMC-6236, Revolution Medicines, Inc.) is being evaluated as a single agent in a Phase 3 trial (RASolute) in patients with previously untreated mPDAC. Arcus Biosciences, Inc. is also evaluating their small molecule inhibitor of CD73 (quemliclustat), in combination with GnP in a Phase 3 trial (PRISM-1) also in patients with previously untreated mPDAC. Both of these studies have only recently been initiated. There are other studies combining immune checkpoint inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, various chemotherapies and other RAS inhibitors in patients with mPDAC including second-line studies. However, many of the targeted agents besides elraglusib are only able to target a small percentage of mPDAC patients based on the presence of the target or other genomic information. Ongoing studies with many of these agents in mPDAC are generally non-randomized at one or a limited number of sites, are too early to assess for commercial potential and would not be considered as a competitor to elraglusib because of their lack of broad suitability for most mPDAC patients. For example, the PARP inhibitor Lynparza (olaparib) was recently approved as a maintenance therapy as it has been shown to significantly improve PFS and duration of response in patients with BRCA-mutated mPDAC who have not progressed following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. However, BRCA mutations are only present in 4-7% of all PDAC patients. Olaparib is currently being evaluated as a therapeutic intervention in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab, in patients with mPDAC in BRCA1 mutated patients. Similarly, many of the RAS mutations targeted by clinical RAS inhibitors are only present in a low percentage of all PDAC and thus, of the current PDAC inhibitors available in the clinic, few PDAC patients would be expected to benefit from their treatment.

Thus, the vast majority of mPDAC patients still do not have an approved targeted therapy that can treat their tumor. If successful, we believe the elraglusib/chemotherapy combination would introduce the first broadly targeted agent, elraglusib, as a treatment option for patients with mPDAC and would have the potential to treat the majority (80-90%) of patients with mPDAC. A review of clinicaltrials.gov reveals that there are only a few randomized studies for any novel drug or drug combination (not just targeted) in patients with mPDAC previously untreated for metastatic disease:

There are several treatments in development for locally advanced or mPDAC. The information cited above focuses only on select first-line treatments that are in clinical trials in mPDAC. Quite a few of these are very early stage and therefore little information is available on clinical activity to date. With the initial success of biomarker driven and targeted therapies, there is an effort to test additional targeted agents in mPDAC patients to determine if there is any synergy with standard chemotherapy regimens in the first-line setting. For instance, KRAS is mutated in over 90% of pancreatic cancer patients and there are several KRAS targeted agents in development; however, several agents are specifically targeting the G12C mutation which only accounts for 1-2% of KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer. Other agents are being tested in KRAS mutant cancers more broadly by targeting other MAPK pathway members such as MEK and ERK1/2, though treatment-related toxicity has been reported with these agents. Additionally, these MAPK targeted agents are currently being evaluated in second-line and later settings. In the future, targeted/ immunotherapy agents may be able to be combined or used in series to provide a more flexible and tailored therapeutic approach for each individual patient. Additionally, the multifaceted and differentiated mechanism of action of elraglusib is likely to be synergistic with both cytotoxic and immunomodulatory therapeutics that may be approved in the future. Our management believes that this potential for combining elraglusib with future multi-therapy regimens is also feasible given favorable safety profile of elraglusib as a single agent. Mechanistically, some of the targets inhibited by competitors (e.g., KRAS) intersect with the GSK-3 pathways and provide a rationale for potentially prioritizing these combinations with elraglusib in the future.

The above information includes corporate competitors that we are currently aware of and are currently conducting clinical trials or marketing in geographies where we currently anticipate conducting clinical trials for our product candidate. However, companies operating in other geographies and smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors. In addition, academic research departments and public and private research institutions may be conducting research on compounds that could prove to be competitive.

Finally, many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. The pharmaceutical product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Clinical Development and Regulatory Approval.”

U.S. Pharmaceutical Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial enforcement. Any regulatory enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a non-biological pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The lengthy process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources and approvals are inherently uncertain.

Before testing any pharmaceutical product with potential therapeutic value in humans, the pharmaceutical product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. These early studies are conducted using sound scientific procedures and require thorough documentation. The conduct of a single and repeat dose toxicology and toxicokinetic studies in animals must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP. The pharmaceutical product sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, 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. The IND becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA has concerns and notifies the sponsor. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. If resolution cannot be reached within the 30-day review period, the FDA can place the IND on clinical hold or the sponsor may withdraw the application. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a pharmaceutical product candidate at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or regulatory non-compliance. Accordingly, it is not certain that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical studies to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that can lead to suspension or termination of such clinical studies.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA to discuss progress. These meetings may occur prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 clinical development, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the sponsor to ask specific questions of the FDA, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of Phase 2 meeting to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical (registration) trial(s) that they believe will support approval of the new drug. A sponsor may be able to request a Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”), the purpose of which is to reach agreement with the FDA on the Phase 3 clinical trial protocol design and analyses that will form the primary basis of an efficacy claim.

Conducting Clinical Studies

Clinical studies are voluntary research studies involving the administration of the pharmaceutical product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, typically physicians independent of the clinical study sponsor’s control. Clinical studies are conducted according to protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, how the results will be analyzed and presented and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), at, or servicing, each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and is tasked with considering such items as whether the safety risks to individuals participating in the clinical studies are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB approves the informed consent that must be provided to each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and will also monitor the clinical study to ensure patient safety until completed.

Human clinical studies are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

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

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical studies, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the pharmaceutical product, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), an NDA or a supplement thereof must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the pharmaceutical product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any pharmaceutical product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. 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 the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), the FDA has 10 months in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months for a priority NDA. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel pharmaceutical products or pharmaceutical 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 as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the pharmaceutical product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), is necessary to assure the safe use of the pharmaceutical product. If the FDA concludes that a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to ensure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical study sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities, or clinical study sites are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. In addition, the FDA will require the review and approval of product labeling.

The NDA review and approval process is lengthy and involved and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical data or other data and information. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA will issue a complete response letter if the agency decides not to approve the NDA. The complete response letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical studies.

Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory 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. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing which involves clinical studies designed to further assess pharmaceutical product safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

Expedited Development and Review Programs; Breakthrough Therapy Designation

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new pharmaceutical products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new pharmaceutical products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. The Fast Track designation must be requested by the sponsor. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. With a Fast Track designated product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, if the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable and if the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing approval, including a Fast Track program, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new pharmaceutical product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Pharmaceutical products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that the products may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical studies establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a pharmaceutical product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

The FDA is also required to expedite the development and review of the application for approval of drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the breakthrough therapy program, the sponsor of a new product candidate may request that the FDA designate the product candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the product candidate. The FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Elraglusib IV and elraglusib oral dosage forms may all be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation depending on the indication and pending additional data.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or in other limited cases. ODD provides for seven years of market exclusivity, independent of patent protection, to the company with ODD that brings a particular product to market. In addition, companies developing orphan drugs are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing.

To gain exclusivity, if a product that has ODD subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to the orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same active moiety for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as another drug’s showing of clinical superiority over the drug with orphan exclusivity. In addition, doctors may prescribe products for off-label uses and undermine our exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same active moiety for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior.

A sponsor may request ODD of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain ODD for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first, approved product. More than one sponsor may receive ODD for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking ODD must file a complete request for designation, and only the first sponsor that obtains approval for that drug for the orphan indication will obtain market exclusivity, effectively preventing the FDA from approving products under development by competitors for the same drug and same indication, unless the competitor is able to demonstrate that the product under development is clinically superior to the approved product or the approved product is not available in sufficient quantities. To permit the FDA to end another manufacturer’s orphan exclusivity period, the FDA must determine that the manufacturer has demonstrated clinical superiority by showing the later drug is safer, more effective, or otherwise makes a major contribution to patient care.

We may plan to pursue ODD and exclusivity for some of our product candidates in the United States, the EU, and other geographies of interest for specific products. ODD neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. We cannot guarantee that we will obtain ODD for any products in any jurisdiction. Even if we are able to acquire ODD for a product, we cannot be sure that such product will be approved, that we will be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, if ever, or that we will be able to maintain any exclusivity that is granted.

Regulation Outside the United States

In order to market a pharmaceutical product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy that govern, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a pharmaceutical product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Regulation and Marketing Authorization in the EU

The EMA is the scientific agency of the EU that coordinates the evaluation and monitoring of new and approved medicinal products such as drugs and biologics. It is responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for EU marketing authorizations, as well as the development of technical guidance and the provision of scientific advice to sponsors.

The process regarding approval of medicinal products in the EU follows roughly the same lines as in the United States and likewise generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential efficacy and toxicity in animals. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant EU regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA when seeking approval to start a clinical trial, and with the MAA when seeking marketing authorization.

Clinical Trial Approval

Requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the EU including GCP, are implemented in the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC. Pursuant to Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC, as amended, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU has been implemented through national legislation of the EU member states. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority in which a trial is planned to be conducted, or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. To this end, a CTA is submitted, which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier (IMPD) and further supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and other applicable guidance documents. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application in that country.

On January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 repealed the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the EU, the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 was passed as a regulation which is directly applicable in all EU member states. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC will, however, still apply three years from the date of entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation to (i) clinical trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year after the entry into application if the sponsor opts for the old system.

Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trial in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include:

Marketing Authorization

Authorization to market a product in the member states of the EU proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure or a national procedure.

Centralized Procedure

The centralized procedure enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization that is valid in all EU member states based on a single application. Certain medicinal products, including products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must undergo the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization, which, if granted by the European Commission, based on the opinion of the EMA, is automatically valid in all EU member states. Sponsors may elect to file an MAA through the centralized procedures for other classes of products.

The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products such as medicines derived from biotechnology processes (e.g., genetic engineering), advanced-therapy medicines (e.g., gene-therapy, tissue engineered medicine), orphan medicines, and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases.

The centralized authorization procedure is optional for other medicinal products if they contain a new active substance, if the applicant shows that the medicinal product concerned constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or that the granting of authorization is in the public interest of the EU.

Administration Procedure

Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Human Medicinal Products (“CHMP”) serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products for human use on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each member state’s national authority for medicinal products, with one of them appointed to act as Rapporteur for the coordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the Committee acting as a Co-Rapporteur. After approval, the Rapporteur(s) continue to monitor the product throughout its life cycle. The CHMP has 210 active days, to adopt an opinion as to whether a marketing authorization should be granted. The process usually takes longer in case additional information is requested, which triggers clock-stops in the procedural timelines. The process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the regulatory authorities of member states and a number of experts. When an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in respect of a drug which is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, the applicant may, pursuant to Article 14(9) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, request an accelerated assessment procedure. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time-limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time-limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report (“EPAR”) is produced. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on which this conclusion was reached. After the adoption of the CHMP opinion, a decision on the MAA must be adopted by the European Commission, after consulting the EU member states, which in total can take more than 60 days. After a drug has been authorized and launched, it is a condition of maintaining the marketing authorization that all aspects relating to its quality, safety and efficacy must be kept under review.

Conditional Approval

In specific circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14(7) Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No. 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for products (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if  (1) the risk-benefit balance of the product is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) the product fulfills unmet medical needs, and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Marketing Authorization Under Exceptional Circumstances

As per Article 14(8) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, products for which the applicant can demonstrate that comprehensive data (in line with the requirements laid down in Annex I of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended) cannot be provided (due to specific reasons foreseen in the legislation) might be eligible for marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances. This type of authorization is reviewed annually to reassess the risk-benefit balance. The fulfillment of any specific procedures/obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is aimed at the provision of information on the safe and effective use of the product and will normally not lead to the completion of a full dossier/approval.

Pediatric Studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver, or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, the so-called Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA (“PDCO”) may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine in children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine in children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population.

Before a marketing authorization application can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

Period of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization will be valid for five years in principle, and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by a national authority. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least nine months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization will be valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the national authority decides on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization that is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization will cease to be valid, the so-called “sunset clause.”

Orphan Medicinal Product Designation and Exclusivity

The European Commission can grant OMPD to products for which the sponsor can establish that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the EU, or (2) a life threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the EU and that without incentives it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EU would generate a sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. In addition, the sponsor must establish that there is no other satisfactory method approved in the EU of diagnosing, preventing or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed orphan drug will be of significant benefit to patients.

OMPD provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized EU marketing authorization, as well as 10 years of market exclusivity following a marketing authorization. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA, nor the European Commission nor the Member States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the OMPD criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. In addition, a competing similar medicinal product may be authorized prior to the expiration of the market exclusivity period, including if it is shown to be safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the already approved orphan drug or if the holder of the marketing authorization for the already approved orphan drug is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the product.

If the MAA of a medicinal product designated as an orphan drug includes the results of all studies conducted in compliance with an agreed PIP, and a corresponding statement is subsequently included in the marketing authorization granted, the 10-year period of market exclusivity will be extended to 12 years.

Regulatory Data Protection

EU legislation also provides for a system of regulatory data and market exclusivity. Upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities approved on the basis of complete independent data package benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar (abbreviated) application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first 8 years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder (“MAH”) obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator is able to gain the period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical test, preclinical tests and clinical trials. However, products designated as orphan medicinal products enjoy, upon receiving marketing authorization, a period of 10 years of orphan market exclusivity. Depending upon the timing and duration of the EU marketing authorization process, products may be eligible for up to five years’ supplementary protection certificates (“SPCs”). Such SPCs extend the rights under the basic patent for the drug.

Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization Has Been Obtained

If we obtain authorization for a medicinal product in the EU, we will be required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products.

We will, for example, have to comply with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed.

Other requirements relate to, for example, the manufacturing of products and active pharmaceutical ingredients in accordance with good manufacturing practice standards. EU regulators may conduct inspections to verify our compliance with applicable requirements, and we will have to continue to expend time, money and effort to remain compliant. Non-compliance with EU requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties in the EU. Similarly, failure to comply with the EU’s requirements regarding the protection of individual personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Individual EU member states may also impose various sanctions and penalties in case we do not comply with locally applicable requirements.

The manufacturing of authorized drugs, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must be conducted in compliance with the EMA’s cGMP requirements and comparable requirements of other national authorities, which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. The EMA enforces its cGMP requirements through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. The EMA may have a coordinating role for these inspections while the responsibility for carrying them out rests with the member states competent authority under whose responsibility the manufacturer falls. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs and lost revenues, and could subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil and criminal penalties.

The marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the EU. The applicable regulations aim to ensure that information provided by holders of marketing authorizations regarding their products is truthful, balanced and accurately reflects the safety and efficacy claims authorized by the EMA or by the national authority of the authorizing member state. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

Other Healthcare Laws

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. Applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our product candidates in the United States may depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the product candidates may be covered by third-party payers, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed health care organizations. These third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of health care costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payers do not consider our product candidates to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our product candidates on a profitable basis.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

Pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. The conduct of such studies could be expensive and result in delays in our commercializing efforts. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on drug pricing. Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of significant legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The PPACA contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs subject to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the PPACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the PPACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since PPACA was enacted. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries, presidential executive orders and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. Additional changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2027, unless additional Congressional action is taken; however, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) and subsequent legislation. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products. There have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. The FDA published a final rule on October 1, 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (“HHS”) finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA directs the HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare. The negotiated prices, which will first become effective in 2026, will be capped at a statutory ceiling price representing a significant discount from average prices to wholesalers and direct purchasers. The law will also, beginning in 2023, penalize drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. Further, the IRA eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented, although the IRA may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future.

Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list.

Any adopted health reform measure could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures, as well as legal changes by foreign governments, will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2024, we had 10 full-time employees plus a number of contract workers, who manage and oversee all aspects of our operations, including nonclinical development, manufacturing, clinical development, and general and administrative functions. Seven employees were engaged in research and development activities. In addition, we currently work with numerous highly experienced consultants and contractors who provide management and oversight in manufacturing, analytical, clinical supply chain, regulatory, pharmacovigilance and safety, clinical operations, data management, statistics, non-clinical toxicology, nonclinical and clinical pharmacology, and medical affairs. Thus, we currently operate as a semi-virtual pharmaceutical company with expertise in numerous aspects of preclinical and clinical development. Many of our consultants and contractors have extensive experience specifically in the development of cancer drugs.

None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

We are a Delaware corporation formed on January 16, 2015 as Apotheca Therapeutics, Inc. and changed our name to Actuate Therapeutics, Inc. on October 1, 2015. Our principal executive offices are located at 1751 River Run, Suite 400, Fort Worth, Texas 76107, and our telephone number is (817) 887-8455.

Our Internet address for corporate and investor information is www.actuatetherapeutics.com. The information contained on our website or connected to our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report on Form 10-K and should not be considered part of this Report.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act are available free of charge on or through our website at www.actuatetherapeutics.com under the "SEC Filings" heading on the "Investors" page as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports have been filed with or furnished to the SEC. They are also available for free on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before you decide to invest in our common stock, you should consider carefully the risks described below, together with the other information contained in this Report, including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes. We believe the risks described below are the risks that are material to us as of the date of this Report. The occurrence of any of the events or developments discussed in the risk factors below could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and, in such case, our future prospects would likely be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Risk Factor Summary

Below is a summary of material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. Importantly, this summary does not address all of the risks and uncertainties that we face and you should not consider this section to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties that may substantially impact our business.

Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Potential Regulatory Approval

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

Risks Related to Commercialization of Elraglusib and any Future Product Candidates

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Industry

Risks Associated to our Common Stock

Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements 

We have a limited operating history, have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and expect to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future. We have a high risk of never generating revenue or becoming profitable or, if we achieve profitability, it may not be sustained.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a relatively limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We commenced operations in January 2015 and have not generated revenue from the sale of our products. Therefore, there is limited historical financial or operational information upon which to evaluate our performance. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses, and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. Many if not most companies in our industry at our stage of development never become profitable and are acquired or go out of business before successfully developing any product that generates revenue from commercial sales or enables profitability.

We have incurred losses since our inception in January 2015 through December 31, 2024 and our accumulated deficit was approximately $132.4 million at December 31, 2024. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development activities and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur substantial and increasing operating losses over the next several years as we continue the clinical development of, seek regulatory approval for and potentially commercialize elraglusib and any future product candidates, as well as operate as a public company.

The magnitude of our future losses and when, if ever, we will become profitable are uncertain. We do not have any products that have generated any revenues from commercial sales, and do not expect to generate revenues from the commercial sale of products in the near future, if ever. If we are unable to successfully develop, obtain requisite approval for and commercialize elraglusib or any future product candidates, we may never generate revenue. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability will depend on, among other things, successful completion of the development of our product candidates; obtaining necessary regulatory approvals from the FDA and international regulatory agencies; establishing manufacturing, sales, and marketing arrangements with third parties; obtaining adequate reimbursement by third-party payers; and raising sufficient funds to finance our activities. If we are unsuccessful at some or all of these undertakings, our business, financial condition, and results of operations are expected to be materially and adversely affected.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, obtaining regulatory approvals for, and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials and preclinical studies of elraglusib and any future product candidates, acquiring or developing additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for elraglusib and any future product candidates and manufacturing, marketing, and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. In addition, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biopharmaceutical industry. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. 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 may have an adverse effect on the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product candidates, achieve our strategic objectives or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Our financial condition raises substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. 

As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately $8.6 million in cash and cash equivalents and working capital of approximately $0.4 million. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant costs in the development of our sole drug candidate, elraglusib. Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue to operate as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. To date, we have not generated product revenues from our activities and have incurred substantial operating losses. We expect that we will continue to generate substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future until we complete development and approval of our product candidates. We expect to continue to fund our operations primarily through utilization of our current financial resources and additional raises of capital.

These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Additionally, our independent registered public accounting firm included in its audit opinion for the year ended December 31, 2024 an explanatory paragraph that there is substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. We plan to address these conditions by raising funds from public or private offerings of equity or debt securities and other funding sources. However, there can be no assurance that such funding will be available to us, will be obtained on terms favorable to us or will provide us with sufficient funds to meet our objectives. The reaction of investors to the inclusion of a going concern statement by our auditors and our potential inability to continue as a going concern may materially adversely affect our ability to raise new capital or enter into partnerships. If we become unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and the value we receive for our assets in liquidation or dissolution could be significantly lower than the value reflected in our consolidated financial statements.

We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our development programs, commercialization efforts or other operations. 

The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, capital-intensive and uncertain process. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect our expenses to substantially increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we conduct our ongoing and planned clinical trials of elraglusib and potentially seek regulatory approval for elraglusib and any future product candidates we may develop. In addition, if we are able to progress elraglusib through development and commercialization, we expect to be required to make milestone and royalty payments pursuant to various license or collaboration agreements with third parties. If we obtain regulatory approval for elraglusib or any future product candidates, we also expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales, and distribution. Because the outcome of any clinical trial or preclinical study is highly uncertain, we cannot reliably estimate the actual amount of capital necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of elraglusib or any future product candidates. Furthermore, we incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to fund our operations for the twelve (12) months following the date of this Report.

Our estimates and assumptions regarding our operating costs may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our operating plans and other demands on our cash resources may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Our existing capital will not be sufficient to complete development of elraglusib in any form, or any future product candidates, and we require substantial capital in order to advance elraglusib and any future product candidates through clinical trials, regulatory approval and commercialization. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. Our ability to raise additional funds may be adversely impacted by global economic conditions, disruptions to, and volatility in, the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide, and diminished liquidity and credit availability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts, or even cease operations. We expect to finance our cash needs through public or private equity or debt financings or other capital sources, including potential collaborations, licenses, and other similar arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Attempting to secure additional financing may divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop elraglusib or any future product candidates.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including without limitation:

Conducting clinical trials and preclinical studies and potentially identifying future product candidates is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize elraglusib or any future product candidates. If approved, elraglusib and any future product candidates may not achieve commercial success. We expect that our commercial revenue, if any, will initially be derived from sales of elraglusib, which we do not expect to be commercially available for several years, if at all. Commercial success in the United States may depend upon acceptance and coverage by federal healthcare program and third-party payors, and it can be time consuming and costly to demonstrate that any of our products should be covered.

Accordingly, in the near term, we intend to seek and will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, including as a result of financial and credit market deterioration or instability, market-wide liquidity shortages, geopolitical events or otherwise.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates. In addition, any capital obtained by us may be obtained on terms that are unfavorable to us, our investors, or both. 

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings or other capital sources, including potential collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds. As we attempt to raise additional financing, which we intend to do in the near term, there can be no assurance that we will be able to secure such additional financing in sufficient quantities or at all. We may be unable to raise additional capital for reasons including, without limitation, our operational and/or financial performance, investor confidence in us and the biopharmaceutical industry, credit availability from banks and other financial institutions, the status of current projects and our prospects for obtaining any necessary regulatory approvals. Potential investors’ capital investments may have shifted to other opportunities with perceived greater returns and/or lower risk thereby reducing capital available to us, if available at all.

In addition, any additional financing might not be available, and even if available, may not be available on terms favorable to us or our then-existing investors. We may seek to raise funds through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, corporate collaboration or licensing arrangements, mergers, acquisitions, sales of intellectual property or other financing vehicles or arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities or other securities (including convertible debt), our then-existing investors will experience dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. If we raise funds through debt financings or bank loans, we may become subject to restrictive covenants, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. Such restrictions could adversely impact our ability to conduct our operations and execute our business plan. Moreover, if we raise funds through debt financings or bank loans, our assets may be pledged as collateral for the debt, and the interests of our then-existing investors would be subordinated to the debt holders or banks. In addition, our use of and ability to exploit assets pledged as collateral for debt or loans may be restricted or forfeited. To the extent that we raise additional funds through collaboration or licensing arrangements, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our future revenue streams, product candidates, research programs, intellectual property or proprietary technology, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us and/or that may reduce the value of our common stock. If we are not able to raise funding when needed under acceptable terms or at all, then we would be required to delay, limit, reduce, curtail, abandon or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we might otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves, or on less favorable terms than we would otherwise choose, or sell assets, or cease operations entirely.

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Potential Regulatory Approval 

We do not have and may never have any approved products on the market. Our business is highly dependent upon receiving approvals from various governmental agencies and will be severely harmed if we are not granted approval to manufacture and sell our product candidates. 

In order for us to commercialize elraglusib for the treatment of mPDAC or for any other disease indication, or any other product candidate, we must obtain regulatory approvals of such treatment for the applicable indication. Satisfying regulatory requirements is an expensive process that typically takes many years and involves extensive compliance with requirements covering research and development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, labeling, and promotion of drugs for human use. To obtain necessary regulatory approvals, we must, among other requirements, complete clinical trials demonstrating that our products are safe and effective for a particular indication. In addition, before we can initiate clinical development for any future preclinical product candidates, we must submit the results of preclinical studies to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities along with other information, including information about product candidate chemistry, manufacturing and controls and our proposed clinical trial protocol, as part of an IND or similar regulatory submission, and we are also required to submit comparable applications to foreign regulatory authorities for clinical trials outside of the United States. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional preclinical studies for any future product candidates before it allows us to initiate clinical trials under any IND or similar regulatory submission, which may lead to delays or increase the costs of developing future product candidates. There can be no assurance that our products will prove to be safe and effective, that our preclinical or clinical trials will demonstrate the necessary safety and effectiveness of our product candidates, or that we will succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any treatment we develop even if such safety and effectiveness are demonstrated.

Any delays or difficulties we encounter in our clinical trials may delay or preclude regulatory approval from the FDA or from international regulatory organizations. Any delay or preclusion of regulatory approval would be expected to delay or preclude the commercialization of our products. Examples of delays or difficulties that we may encounter in our clinical trials include without limitation the following:

Any success we may achieve at a given stage of our clinical trials does not guarantee that we will achieve success at any subsequent stage, including without limitation final FDA approval.

We may encounter delays or rejections in the regulatory approval process because of additional government regulation resulting from future legislation or administrative action, or from changes in the policies of the FDA or other regulatory bodies during the period of product development, clinical trials, or regulatory review. In addition, legislative and regulatory agendas, as they relate to healthcare and pharmaceutical industries and the economy as a whole, of the Trump administration and the U.S. Congress currently remain uncertain. Failure to comply with any current or future applicable regulatory requirements may result in criminal prosecution, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, or an injunction preventing certain activity, as well as other regulatory action against our product candidates or us. As a company, we have no experience in successfully obtaining regulatory approval for a product and thus may be poorly equipped to gauge, and may prove unable to manage, risks relating to obtaining such approval.

Outside the United States, our ability to market a product is contingent upon receiving clearances from appropriate non-U.S. regulatory authorities. Non-U.S. regulatory approval typically includes all of the risks associated with FDA clearance discussed above as well as geopolitical uncertainties and the additional uncertainties and potential prejudices faced by U.S. pharmaceutical companies conducting business abroad. In certain cases, pricing restrictions and practices can make achieving even limited profitability very difficult.

We currently depend entirely on the success of elraglusib, which is our only product candidate. If we are unable to advance elraglusib in clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize elraglusib in a timely manner, our business will be materially harmed. 

We currently only have one product candidate, elraglusib, which is in Phase 2 clinical development for the treatment of mPDAC as its lead indication. Our business presently depends entirely on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize elraglusib in a timely manner. This may make an investment in our company riskier than similar companies that have multiple product candidates in active development and may be able to better sustain the delay or failure of a lead product candidate. The success of elraglusib will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we are unable to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, or if approved, successfully manufacture and commercialize elraglusib, or if we experience delays as a result of any of the above factors or otherwise, our business would be materially harmed.

Even if we complete all planned clinical trials including a Phase 3 trial in the future, there is no guarantee that at the time of submission the FDA will accept our NDA.

The regulation and control of new drugs in the United States is based on the NDA, and every new drug is the subject of an approved NDA before U.S. commercialization. Through the NDA application, the developer of a drug candidate formally proposes that the FDA approve a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing in the United States. The data gathered during the animal studies and human clinical trials of an IND become part of the NDA.

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements, regulations or guidelines, and are subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and ethics committees or one or more IRBs at the medical institutions and clinical trial sites where the clinical trials are conducted. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, or by a data safety monitoring board for such trial or by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension, including a clinical hold, or termination due to a number of factors, including, among other reasons, failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP and other regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site, or investigation of principal or sub-investigators conducting our clinical trials, by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Failure by us or any of our third-party vendors, manufacturers, or trial sites to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in criminal prosecution, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, or an injunction preventing certain activity, as well as other regulatory action against our product candidates or us. As a company, we have no experience in successfully obtaining regulatory approval for a product and thus may be poorly equipped to gauge, and may prove unable to manage, risks relating to obtaining such approval.

Outside the United States, our ability to market a product is contingent upon receiving clearances from appropriate non-U.S. regulatory authorities. Non-U.S. regulatory approval typically includes all of the risks associated with FDA clearance discussed above as well as the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocols as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, and political and economic risks, including war or embargoes, relevant to such foreign countries. In certain cases, pricing restrictions and practices can make achieving even limited profitability very difficult.

Clinical and preclinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and outcomes, and the results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results. Elraglusib or any future product candidates may not achieve favorable results or receive regulatory approval on a timely basis, if at all. 

Drug development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials or preclinical studies will be conducted as planned, including whether we are able to meet expected timeframes for data readouts, or completed on schedule, if at all, and failure can occur at any time during the trial or study process, including due to factors that are beyond our control. Despite promising preclinical or clinical results, elraglusib or any other future product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of clinical or preclinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates in our industry is high.

The results from preclinical studies or clinical trials of elraglusib, any future product candidate, or a competitor’s product candidate in the same class may not predict the results of later clinical trials of elraglusib or any future product candidate, and interim, topline or preliminary results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Elraglusib or any future product candidate in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired characteristics despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. It is not uncommon to observe results in clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical studies and early clinical trials, and many product candidates fail in clinical trials despite very promising early results.

Moreover, preclinical and clinical data may be susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies. Such setbacks have occurred and may occur for many reasons, including, but not limited to: clinical sites and investigators may deviate from clinical trial protocols, whether due to lack of training or otherwise, and we may fail to detect any such deviations in a timely manner; patients may fail to adhere to any required clinical trial procedures, including any requirements for post-treatment follow-up; our product candidates may fail to demonstrate safety, purity or potency (or efficacy) in certain patient subpopulations, which has not been observed in earlier trials due to limited sample size, lack of analysis or otherwise; or our clinical trials may not adequately represent the patient populations we intend to treat, whether due to limitations in our trial designs or otherwise, such as where one patient subgroup is overrepresented in the clinical trial. There can be no assurance that we will not suffer similar setbacks despite the data we observed in earlier or ongoing studies. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we or any current or any future collaborator may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which would cause us to incur additional operating expenses and delays and may not be sufficient to support regulatory approval on a timely basis or at all.

We may not be successful in our efforts to advance elraglusib in additional indications. We may expend our limited resources to pursue a new product candidate or a particular indication for elraglusib and fail to capitalize on more profitable or successful alternatives. 

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on the development of elraglusib for specific indications. We may fail to generate additional clinical development opportunities for elraglusib for a number of reasons, including that elraglusib may, in indications we are seeking or may seek in the future, be shown to have harmful side effects, limited to no efficacy or other characteristics that suggest it is unlikely to receive marketing approval and/or achieve market acceptance in such potential indications. Our resource allocation and other decisions may cause us to fail to identify and capitalize on viable potential product candidates or additional indications for elraglusib. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for new product candidates or additional indications for elraglusib may not yield any commercially viable product candidates or indications. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular indication or product candidate, we may fail to develop such product candidate or indication, or relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaborations, license agreements and other similar arrangements in cases where it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such indication or product candidate, or negotiate less advantageous terms for any such arrangements than is optimal.

Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses or acquisitions of development-stage assets or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a particular product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment.

Use of elraglusib or any future product candidates could be associated with side effects, adverse events or other properties or safety risks, which could delay or preclude regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon elraglusib or any future product candidate, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in other significant negative consequences that could severely harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 

As is the case with oncology drugs generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with use of elraglusib or any future product candidates’ use. Results of our clinical trial collaborators or any future collaborators could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of expected or unexpected side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates when used alone or in combination with approved or investigational drugs could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or lead to the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Moreover, if elraglusib or any future product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or demonstrate characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon their development or limit their 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, which may limit the commercial expectations for such product candidate if approved. Unacceptable enhancement of certain toxicities may be seen when elraglusib or any future product candidates are combined with standard of care therapies, or when they are used as single agents. We may also be required to modify our development and clinical trial plans based on findings in our ongoing clinical trials. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early-stage testing for treating cancer have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compounds.

It is possible that as we, our collaborators or any future collaborators test elraglusib or any future product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, including with different dosing regimens, or as the use of these product candidates becomes more widespread following any regulatory approval, more illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events than were observed in earlier trials, as well as new conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, may be discovered. If such side effects become known later in development or upon approval, if any, such findings may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

With regard to our lead product candidate, elraglusib, unforeseen side effects from elraglusib could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after elraglusib has been marketed. This could cause regulatory approvals for, or market acceptance of, elraglusib harder and costlier to obtain.

To date, elraglusib as a single agent and in combination with a variety of chemotherapy has been shown in a Phase 1 trial to be well-tolerated. However, these data were obtained in advanced cancer patients across many different cancer types and at different doses of elraglusib. The results of our planned or any future clinical trials in single cancer types may show that the side effects of elraglusib are unacceptable or intolerable, especially when compared with standard of care and in earlier stage patients, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials. This could result in delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA or EMA and other regulatory authorities or result in marketing approval from the FDA or EMA and other regulatory authorities with restrictive label warnings.

If elraglusib receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by the use of elraglusib:

Any of these events could prevent us or our potential future collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of elraglusib and/or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from the sale of elraglusib.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of subjects to our clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. 

Identifying, screening and enrolling patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success, and we may not be able to identify, recruit, enroll and dose a sufficient number of patients with the required or desired characteristics to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. We may not be able to initiate or continue certain clinical trials for elraglusib or any future product candidates if we are unable to identify 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. The timing of our clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients to participate as well as to subsequently dose these patients and complete required follow-up periods. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and characteristics of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility and exclusion criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, the risk that enrolled patients will not complete a clinical trial, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, and competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages and risks of the product candidates being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new products that may be approved for the indications we are investigating as well as any product candidates under development. We will be required to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients for each of our clinical trials and monitor such patients adequately during and after treatment. Potential patients for any planned clinical trials may not be adequately diagnosed or identified with the diseases which we are targeting, which could adversely impact the outcomes of our trials and could have safety concerns for the potential patients. Potential patients for any planned clinical trials may also not meet the entry criteria for such trials. In particular, because our planned clinical trials of elraglusib are focused on indications with relatively small patient populations, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate.

In addition, we may experience enrollment delays related to increased or unforeseen regulatory, legal and logistical requirements at certain clinical trial sites. These delays could be caused by reviews by regulatory authorities and contractual discussions with individual clinical trial sites. Any delays in enrolling and/or dosing patients in our planned clinical trials could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or in termination of the clinical trials altogether.

We may not be able to fully enroll our clinical trials if other pharmaceutical companies with ongoing clinical trials for products with similar indications as our product candidates recruit from these patient populations. The timing of our clinical trials depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in our trials, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. Patient enrollment may also be affected by other factors, including:

If patients are unwilling or unable to participate in our trials for any reason, including the existence of concurrent clinical trials for similar target populations, the availability of approved therapies, or the fact that enrolling in our trials may prevent patients from taking a different product, or we otherwise have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of elraglusib or any future product candidates may be delayed. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

Enrollment delays in these clinical trials may result in increased time and development costs for our product candidates, which could materially affect our financial condition.

As a company, we have not yet completed a Phase 2 clinical trial and have limited experience in completing regulatory filings, and any delays in regulatory filings could materially affect our financial condition. 

We will need to successfully complete clinical trials in order to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval to market elraglusib or any future product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of a successful NDA or other comparable foreign regulatory submission is a complicated process. As a company, we have not yet completed a Phase 2 clinical trials of our product candidates, nor have we demonstrated the ability to obtain marketing approvals, manufacture product candidates at a commercial scale, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for the successful commercialization of a product. We may also choose to conduct a number of additional clinical trials of elraglusib in parallel over the next several years, which may be a difficult process to manage with our limited resources and which may divert attention of management. FDA or other regulatory authority could also require us to conduct additional trials which may further delay approval of our product. Consequently, we have no historical basis as a company by which you can evaluate or predict reliably our future success or viability.

We have limited experience with regulatory filings with agencies such as the FDA or EMA, and we have not yet completed a Phase 2 clinical trial for elraglusib or any other product candidate. We also have limited experience as a company in preparing and submitting marketing applications and have not previously submitted an NDA or other comparable foreign regulatory submission for any product candidate. In addition, we have had limited interactions with the FDA and cannot be certain how many additional clinical trials of elraglusib or any future product candidate will be required or how such additional trials should be designed. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to submission of an NDA and regulatory approval of any of our product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our ongoing or planned clinical trials could prevent us from or delay us in submitting NDAs or other comparable foreign regulatory submissions for and commercializing our product candidates. Any delay in our regulatory filings for our product candidates, and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to the applicable regulatory authority’s review of such filings, including, without limitation, the FDA’s issuance of a “refuse to file” letter or a request for additional information, could materially affect our financial condition.

As a result, we cannot be certain that our ongoing and planned clinical trials or preclinical studies will be successful. Any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of elraglusib in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Interim, topline, and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. 

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, topline, or preliminary data from our clinical trials, based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, topline, or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim, topline, and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, such data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Interim, topline, and preliminary data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary, interim or topline data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions, or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability, or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate, or our business. If the interim, topline, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize elraglusib and any future product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects, or financial condition.

Serious adverse events, undesirable side effects (including emergent drug-drug interactions between elraglusib and any of the other therapeutic agents given to the clinical trial subjects) or other unexpected properties of our current or future product candidates may be identified during development or after approval, which could halt their development or lead to the discontinuation of our clinical development programs, refusal by regulatory authorities to approve our product candidates or, if discovered following marketing approval, revocation of marketing authorizations or limitations on the use of our product candidates thereby limiting the commercial potential of such product candidate. 

To date, elraglusib is the only product candidate we have tested in humans. As we continue our development of elraglusib and initiate clinical trials of any future product candidates, serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics may emerge or be reported, causing us to abandon these product candidates or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Even if our product candidates initially show promise in early clinical trials, the side effects of therapies are frequently only detectable after they are tested in large, Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine if the serious adverse or unexpected side effects were caused by the product candidate or another factor, especially in oncology subjects who may suffer from other medical conditions and be taking other medications. If serious adverse or unexpected side effects are identified during development and are determined to be attributed to our product candidates, or the result of drug-drug interactions between our product candidate and any of the concomitant therapies given to the trial subjects, we, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or IRBs and other reviewing entities, could interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label, a REMS or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also require, or we may voluntarily develop strategies for managing adverse events during clinical development, which could include restrictions on our enrollment criteria, the use of stopping criteria, adjustments to a study’s design, or the monitoring of safety data by a data monitoring committee, among other strategies. Any requests from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority for additional data or information could also result in substantial delays in the approval of our product candidates.

Drug-related side effects could also affect subject recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

The therapeutic-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

We anticipate that many of our product candidates may be tested and, if approved, used in combination with third-party drugs and/or devices, some of which may still be in development, and we have limited or no control over the supply, regulatory status or regulatory approval of such drugs and/or devices. 

We anticipate developing our product candidates for use in combination with other oncology pharmaceuticals, including chemotherapies and cellular and targeted therapies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors). We cannot be certain that current or potential future commercial relationships will provide us with a steady supply of such drugs or devices on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Any failure to maintain or enter into new successful commercial relationships, or the expense of purchasing platinum-based and other chemotherapies, or any other combination products, or any devices in the market, may delay our development timelines, increase our costs and jeopardize our ability to develop our product candidates as commercially viable therapies. If any of these occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed. Moreover, the development of product candidates for use in combination with another product or product candidate may present challenges that are not faced for single agent product candidates. For our product candidates that may be used in combination with other chemotherapies, or any other combination products or any devices, the FDA may require us to use more complex clinical trial designs in order to evaluate the contribution of each product and product candidate to any observed effects. It is possible that the results of these trials could show that there are adverse events tied to the interaction of elraglusib with any of the other therapies, or that any positive previous trial results are attributable to the combination therapy and not our product candidates. Moreover, following product approval, the FDA may require that products or devices used in conjunction with each other be cross labeled for combined use. To the extent that we do not have rights to the other product or device, this may require us to work with a third party to satisfy such a requirement. The ability to obtain cooperation from the third party may impact our ability to respond to the FDA’s requests which could impact our ability to achieve regulatory approval. Moreover, developments related to the other product or device may impact our clinical trials as well as our commercial prospects should we receive marketing approval. Such developments may include changes to the safety or efficacy profile of the other product or device, changes to the availability of the approved product or device, and changes to the standard of care.

In the event that any future collaborator or supplier of other chemotherapies, or any other products administered in combination, or any devices used, with our product candidates does not supply their products on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely fashion, we would need to identify alternatives for accessing these products. This could cause our clinical trials to be delayed and limit the commercial opportunities for our product candidates, in which case our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

We may seek additional Orphan Drug, Fast Track, Breakthrough or orphan and priority (“PRIME”) designations for one or more of our current and future product candidates, but we might not receive any such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process. 

Our lead product candidate, elraglusib, has been given FTD from the FDA for development in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, and we may seek FTD for other indications or future product candidates. The FTD program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing product candidates that meet certain criteria. Specifically, biologics are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended, alone or in combination with one or more drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the application may be eligible for priority review. An NDA submitted for a Fast Track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. Fast Track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe or at all. We may not experience a faster development, regulatory review or approval process with Fast Track designation compared to conventional FDA procedures. Additionally, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation, for reasons such as it comes to believe a drug candidate no longer adequately addresses an unmet medical need or that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures. If we seek Fast Track designation for other indications, or if we pursue breakthrough or PRIME designations from FDA or EMA, respectively, we may not receive such designations. Many product candidates that have received Fast Track designation have ultimately failed to obtain approval.

We, or any future collaborators, may not be able to obtain and maintain orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates in the United States and Europe. 

Elraglusib has been granted ODD for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, glioblastomas, neuroblastoma and soft tissue sarcomas in the United States. We may seek additional ODD or regulatory incentives for other indications, for the oral dosage form of elraglusib, or for future product candidates in the United States, EU, Japan or Australia. We may not be able to obtain such designations.

While elraglusib currently has been granted ODD from the FDA for limited indications, we may not be able to maintain this orphan drug exclusivity. Further, even if we obtain ODD for a future product candidate or for elraglusib with respect to a different indication, we may not be able to maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that drug or indication. For example, ODD may be removed if the prevalence of an indication increases beyond the patient number limit required to maintain designation. Generally, if a drug with an ODD subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the EMA or the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same product in the same indication for that time period. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Moreover, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a different drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care compared to our product.

The FDA may reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies, and similarly the EMA may reevaluate its policies and regulations. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA or EMA may change their orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA and/or EMA may make to their orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

We rely on third parties for the manufacture and shipping of elraglusib for clinical development and expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If we or our licensees, development collaborators, or suppliers are unable to manufacture our products in sufficient quantities or at defined quality specifications, or are unable to obtain regulatory approvals for the manufacturing facility, we may be unable to develop and/or meet demand for our products and lose time to market and potential revenues. 

Completion of our clinical trials and commercialization of our product candidates require access to, or development of, facilities to manufacture a sufficient supply of our product candidates. We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and have no plans to develop our own clinical or commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely on a third-party manufacturer for the production of elraglusib and expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers for commercial manufacture if elraglusib or any future product candidates receive regulatory approval. The facilities used by third-party manufacturers to manufacture elraglusib or any future product candidate must be approved for the manufacture of such product candidate by the FDA and any comparable foreign regulatory authority pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA to the FDA or any comparable submission to a foreign regulatory authority. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements for the manufacture of products. In addition, we have no control over the ability of third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel.

If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of elraglusib or any future product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved. 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, seizures or recalls of elraglusib or any future product candidates, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of elraglusib or any future product candidates. We may not be successful in identifying additional or replacement third-party manufacturers, or in negotiating acceptable terms with any we do identify. We may face competition for access to these manufacturers’ facilities and may be subject to manufacturing delays if the manufacturers give other clients higher priority than they give to us. Even if we are able to identify an additional or replacement third-party manufacturer, the delays and costs associated with establishing and maintaining a relationship with such manufacturer may have a material adverse effect on us.

Before we begin to commercially manufacture elraglusib or any other product candidate, we must obtain regulatory approval of the manufacturing facility and process by the FDA and any comparable foreign regulatory authority pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA to the FDA or any comparable submission to a foreign regulatory authority. Manufacturing of drugs for clinical and commercial purposes must comply with cGMP. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, third-party manufacturers’ for compliance with cGMP requirements for the manufacture of products. If these third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. The cGMP requirements govern quality control and documentation policies and procedures. Complying with cGMP and non-U.S. regulatory requirements will require that we expend time, money, and effort in production, recordkeeping, and quality control to ensure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. We or our contracted manufacturing facility must also pass a pre-approval inspection prior to FDA approval. Failure to pass a pre-approval inspection may significantly delay or prevent FDA approval of our products. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may be limited in the jurisdictions in which we are permitted to market and sell our products, which could adversely impact and delay our ability to potentially generate revenue.

We depend on a third-party manufacturer for certain drug substances, drug products, raw materials, samples, components, and other materials used in our product candidates. We obtain our supplies on a purchase order basis and do not have any long-term supply agreements in place. If we are unable to source these supplies on a timely basis, or establish longer-term contracts with suppliers, we will not be able to complete our clinical trials or studies on time and the development of our product candidates may be delayed. 

We depend on a third-party manufacturer for certain drug substances, drug products, raw materials, samples, components and other materials used in our product candidates. We obtain our supplies on a purchase order basis and do not currently have long-term supply contracts with our supplier, and our supplier is not obligated to supply drug products to us for any period, in any specified quantity or at any certain price beyond the delivery contemplated by the relevant purchase orders. As a result, our supplier could stop selling to us at commercially reasonable prices, or at all. While we intend to enter into long-term supply agreements in the future as we advance our clinical trials or commercialization plans, we may not be successful in negotiating such agreements on favorable terms, or at all. If we do enter into such long-term supply agreements, we could be subject to binding long-term purchase obligations that are less favorable than purchasing on a purchase order basis, and which may be harmful to our business, including in the event that we do not conduct our trials on planned timelines or utilize the drug products that we are required to purchase. Any change in our relationship with our supplier or changes to our arrangement with our supplier could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Furthermore, our supplier could stop producing our supplies, cease operations or be acquired by, or enter into exclusive arrangements with, our competitors. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these supplies, and obtaining regulatory clearance or approvals that may result from adding or replacing suppliers, could take a substantial amount of time, result in increased costs and impair our ability to produce our products or conduct timely trials, which would adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Any such interruption or delay may force us to seek similar supplies from alternative sources, which may not be available at reasonable prices, or at all. Any interruption in the supply of source components for our product candidates would adversely affect our ability to meet scheduled timelines and budget for the development and commercialization of our product candidates, could result in higher expenses and would harm our business. Although we have not experienced any significant disruption as a result of our reliance on our supplier, we have a limited operating history and cannot assure you that we will not experience disruptions in our supply chain in the future as a result of such reliance or otherwise.

It is uncertain whether product liability insurance will be adequate to address product liability claims, or that insurance against such claims will be affordable or available on acceptable terms in the future. 

Clinical research involves the testing of new drugs on human volunteers pursuant to a clinical trial protocol. Such testing involves a risk of liability for personal injury to or death of patients due to, among other causes, adverse side effects, improper administration of the new drug, or improper volunteer behavior. Claims may arise from patients, clinical trial volunteers, consumers, physicians, hospitals, companies, institutions, researchers, or others using, selling, or buying our products, as well as from governmental bodies. In addition, product liability and related risks are likely to increase over time, in particular upon the commercialization or marketing of any products by us or parties with which we enter into development, marketing, or distribution collaborations. Although we are contracting for general liability insurance in connection with our ongoing business, there can be no assurance that the amount and scope of such insurance coverage will be appropriate and sufficient in the event any claims arise, that we will be able to secure additional coverage should we attempt to do so, or that our insurers would not contest or refuse any attempt by us to collect on such insurance policies. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that suitable product liability insurance (at the clinical stage and/or commercial stage) will continue to be available on terms acceptable to us or at all, or that, if obtained, the insurance coverage will be appropriate and sufficient to cover any potential claims or liabilities.

If the market opportunities for our current and potential future drug candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our ability to generate product revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer. 

The potential market opportunities for our product candidates are difficult to estimate and will depend in large part on the drugs with which our product candidates are co-administered and the success of competing therapies and therapeutic approaches. Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with elraglusib or any future product candidate are predicated on many assumptions, which may include industry knowledge and publications, third-party research reports, and other surveys. Although we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, these assumptions involve the exercise of significant judgment on the part of our management, are inherently uncertain, and their reasonableness has not been assessed by an independent source. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, and patients may not be amenable to treatment with our product, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If any of the assumptions prove to be inaccurate, the actual markets for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of the potential market opportunities. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for elraglusib or any future product candidate, because some of our potential target populations are very small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties 

The termination of third-party licenses could adversely affect our rights to important technologies.

In connection with our efforts to expand our pipeline of product candidates, we may enter into certain licenses or other collaboration agreements in the future pertaining to the in-license of rights to additional candidates. Such agreements may impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance or other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensor or collaboration partners may have the right to terminate the relevant agreement, in which event we would not be able to develop or market the products covered by such licensed intellectual property. Our existing licensing agreements with UIC and NU contain diligence obligations to maintain each license agreement.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase what we believe to be our consolidated financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

We may also have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by any future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

Our current elraglusib DS manufacturer is in China, and it is unknown how current or future geopolitical relationships with China may affect our ability to obtain DS, increase our costs, delay clinical trials and potential regulatory approval, and adversely impact our financial condition.

We rely upon a single company located in China to manufacture the DS for our sole product candidate, elraglusib. This company manufactures DS under cGMP that is suitable for formulating into a therapeutic used in humans, which manufacturing process is substantially completed in the United States. We do not have any exclusive contractual commitments for this company to manufacture for us in the future or to ever become a sole provider of DS and thus, we do have the ability to seek out other GMP manufacturers if needed. However, if we do not maintain this manufacturing and service relationship that is important to us and are not able to identify replacement suppliers, vendors and laboratories, our ability to obtain elraglusib for clinical trials and potential regulatory approval could be impaired or delayed and our costs could substantially increase, adversely impacting our financial condition.

We may be unable to identify additional manufacturers with whom we might establish appropriate arrangements on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to find replacement manufacturers, suppliers, vendors and service providers when needed, we may not be able to enter into agreements with them on terms and conditions favorable to us or there could be a substantial delay before such manufacturer, vendor or supplier, or a related new facility is properly qualified and registered with the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities. A new manufacturer currently not qualified with the FDA would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our approved products after receipt of FDA approval. To qualify and receive regulatory approval for a new manufacturer could take as long as two years. The process of changing a supplier could have an adverse impact on our current clinical development programs if supplies of DS or materials on hand are insufficient to satisfy demand. Such delays could have a material adverse effect on our development activities and our business. Adverse changes in the political and economic policies of the Chinese government could have a material adverse effect on the overall economic growth of China, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct business in China. We are unable to predict the frequency and scope of such policy changes, any of which could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, access to capital and our ability to conduct business in China. Any failure on our part to comply with changing government regulations and policies could result in the loss of our ability to manufacture and develop our product candidates in China.

We rely on third parties to conduct our non-clinical studies and clinical trials. If these parties do not successfully carry out their duties or meet deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and adversely affect our financial condition.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct non-clinical studies and clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories, collaborative partners and other third parties, such as contract research organizations or clinical research organizations, to conduct non-clinical studies and clinical trials on our product candidates. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our non-clinical studies and clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. However, these third parties are not our employees, and except for contractual duties and obligations, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs.

Although we rely on third parties to conduct our non-clinical studies and clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our non-clinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, the FDA, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with regulations and standards, including regulations commonly referred to as GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials.

In addition, the execution of non-clinical studies and clinical trials, and the subsequent compilation and analyses of the data produced, requires coordination among various parties. In order for these functions to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that these parties communicate and coordinate with one another. Moreover, these third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. Under certain circumstances, these third parties may be able to terminate their agreements with us upon short notice. If the third parties conducting our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols or GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated or may need to be repeated. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we may not be able to obtain, on a timely basis or at all, regulatory approval for or to commercialize the product candidate being tested in such trials, and as a result, our financial condition will be adversely affected.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor or other third party will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed. 

Because we currently rely on third parties to manufacture elraglusib and to perform quality testing, we must, at times, share our proprietary technology and confidential information, including trade secrets, with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology, in part, by entering into confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors or other third parties, are intentionally or inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets and despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, a competitor’s or other third party’s discovery of our proprietary technology and confidential information or other unauthorized use or disclosure of such technology or information would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Corporate, non-profit, and academic collaborators may take actions (including lack of effective actions) to delay, prevent, or undermine the success of our products. We may continue to seek new collaborations or alliances in the future with respect to elraglusib or any future product candidates, but we may be unable to do so or to realize the potential benefits of such transactions, which may cause us to alter or delay our development and commercialization plans. 

Our operating and financial strategy for the development, clinical testing, manufacture, and commercialization of product candidates is heavily dependent on us entering into collaborations with corporations, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, licensors, licensees, and other parties. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in establishing such collaborations. Current and future collaborations are and may be terminable at the sole discretion of the collaborator. The activities of any collaborator will not be within our direct control and may not be in our power to influence. There can be no assurance that any collaborator will perform its obligations to our satisfaction or at all; that we will derive any revenue, profits, or benefit from such collaborations; or that any collaborator will not compete with us. If any collaboration is not pursued, we may require substantially greater capital to undertake development and commercialization of our proposed products, and we may not be able to develop and commercialize such products effectively, if at all. In addition, a lack of development and commercialization collaborations may lead to significant delays in introducing proposed products into certain markets and/or reduced sales of proposed products in such markets.

We also face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners, and the negotiation process can be time-consuming, costly and complex. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish or maintain such collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us. As a result, we may need to relinquish valuable rights to our future revenue streams, research programs, intellectual property, elraglusib or any future product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us, as part of any such arrangement, and such arrangements may restrict us from entering into additional agreements with other potential collaborators. In addition, our current collaborations limit, and potential future collaborations may limit, our control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators will dedicate to the development or commercialization of elraglusib or any future product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue from these arrangements will depend on any current or future collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot be certain that, following a collaboration, license, or strategic transaction, we will achieve an economic benefit that justifies such transaction, and such transaction may not yield additional development product candidates for our pipeline. Furthermore, we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, the development or approval of elraglusib or any future product candidate is delayed, the safety of any such product candidate is questioned, or the sales of elraglusib, if approved, or an approved future product candidate, are unsatisfactory.

In addition, our current collaborations are, and potential future collaborations may be, terminable by our strategic partners, and we may not be able to adequately protect our rights under these agreements. Furthermore, strategic partners may negotiate for certain rights to control decisions regarding the development and, if approved, commercialization of elraglusib or any future product candidates, and may not conduct those activities in the same manner as we do. Any termination of collaborations we enter into in the future, or any delay in entering into collaborations related to elraglusib or any future product candidates, could delay the development and, if approved, commercialization of such product candidates, and reduce their competitiveness if they reach the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Data provided by collaborators and other parties upon which we rely have not been independently verified and could turn out to be inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete. 

We rely on third-party vendors, scientists, clinical trial investigators, and collaborators to provide us with significant data and other information related to our projects, clinical trials, and business. We do not independently verify or audit all of such data (including possibly material portions thereof). As a result, such data may be inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete.

In certain cases, we may need to rely on a single supplier for a particular manufacturing material or service, and any interruption in or termination of service by such supplier could delay or disrupt the commercialization of our products. 

We rely on third-party suppliers for the materials used to manufacture our compounds. We currently have a sole source manufacturer for the DS for elraglusib, and, while we believe that a suitable alternative vendor would be available if needed, some of these materials may at times only be available from one supplier. Any interruption in or termination of service by such single source suppliers could result in a delay or disruption in manufacturing until we locate an alternative source of supply, which could, among other things, adversely impact our clinical trials and ability to obtain approval from the FDA for elraglusib or a future product candidate. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in locating an alternative source of supply or in negotiating acceptable terms with such prospective supplier.

We may also rely on certain third-party vendors located in China or who are owned by or are associated with certain Chinese companies to assist in non-clinical or clinical trials or provide laboratory services. It is unknown how current or future geopolitical relationships with China or specific Chinese-owned or associated vendors may affect our ability to complete our non-clinical or clinical trials. 

We do not currently, but may in the future, rely upon one or more companies located in China, or are owned or operated by Chinese companies to provide non-clinical or clinical trial support services. If so, the process of changing these vendors could have an adverse impact on our current clinical development programs if they were no longer permitted to provide services or products due to geopolitical pressures, including legislative activities or executive orders aimed at prohibiting certain Chinese or Chinese-owned biotechnology companies from engaging in biotechnology or biopharmaceutical research activities. We could experience delays in finding suitable replacement service providers located outside China or not otherwise owned by or associated with Chinese companies, which could have a material adverse effect on our development activities and our business. We are unable to predict whether or when proposed legislative or executive actions would be effective, and whether such changes would materially and adversely affect our liquidity, access to capital and our ability to conduct business. Any failure on our part to comply with changing government regulations and policies could result in the loss of our ability to manufacture and develop our product candidates.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Elraglusib and any Future Product Candidates 

We have a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult to evaluate our prospects and likelihood of success. 

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We were originally incorporated in 2015, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue to date. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio and performing clinical trials and research and development of our product candidates. Our approach to the research and development of product candidates is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value. In addition, our lead product candidate, elraglusib, will require substantial additional development and clinical research time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate beyond Phase 2 clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture products at commercial scale or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. In addition, as a business with a limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields. Consequently, we have no meaningful history of operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing drug products.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for elraglusib or any future product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. 

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for elraglusib or any future product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities, subject us to surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS as a condition of approval of elraglusib or any future product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves elraglusib or any future product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our products will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Manufacturers of approved products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements or later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, may result in, among other things:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize elraglusib or any future product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could prevent, limit or delay marketing authorization of elraglusib or any future product candidates. We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. 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 be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. 

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive regulatory approval for elraglusib or any future product candidates, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The government has also required companies to enter into consent decrees or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, elraglusib, and any other future product candidates that we advance into clinical development, all of which will require significant additional development before we can seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We have one clinical product candidate, elraglusib, in clinical development. Because elraglusib is our only product candidate, if elraglusib encounters safety or efficacy problems, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed. For each product candidate, we must demonstrate its safety and efficacy in humans, obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, obtain manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, and substantially invest in marketing efforts before we will be able to generate any revenue from such product candidate. These efforts will require substantial investment, and we may not have the financial resources to continue development of our product candidates.

We may experience setbacks that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our product candidates, including:

We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and our manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts or that of any future collaborator.

Our product development efforts are at an early stage. We have not yet undertaken any marketing efforts, and there can be no assurance that future anticipated market testing and analyses will validate our marketing strategy. We may need to modify the products, or we may not be successful in either developing or marketing those products. 

As a company, we have not completed the development or clinical trials of any product candidates and, accordingly, have not yet begun to market or generate revenue from the commercialization of any products. Obtaining approvals of these product candidates will require substantial additional research and development as well as costly clinical trials. There can be no assurance that we will successfully complete the development of our product candidates or successfully market them. We may encounter problems and delays relating to research and development, regulatory approval, intellectual property rights of product candidates, or other factors. There can be no assurance that our development programs will be successful, that our product candidates will prove to be safe and effective in or after clinical trials, that the necessary regulatory approvals for any product candidates will be obtained, or, even if obtained, will be as broad as sought or will be maintained for any period thereafter, that patents will issue on our patent applications, that any intellectual property protections we secure will be adequate, or that our collaboration arrangements will not diminish the value of our intellectual property through licensing or other arrangements.

Furthermore, elraglusib and any future product candidates may not be commercially successful. Even if elraglusib or any future product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors, or the medical community. The commercial success of elraglusib or any future product candidates will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by these individuals and organizations for approved indications, and there can be no assurance that competitive products will not perform better and/or be marketed more successfully. Additionally, there can be no assurances that any future market testing and analyses will validate our marketing strategies. We may need to seek to modify the product labels through additional studies in order to be able to market them successfully to reach their commercial potential. If elraglusib or any future product candidates is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors or patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from that product and may not become or remain profitable. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors regarding the benefits of our products may require significant resources and may never be successful.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience as a company in commercializing products, and we may need to invest significant resources to develop these capabilities. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market, sell and distribute our products, we may not be able to generate product revenue. 

We have no internal sales, marketing or distribution capabilities, nor have we ever commercialized a product. If elraglusib or any future product candidate ultimately receives regulatory approval, we must build a marketing and sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product in major markets, which will be expensive and time consuming, or collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. For example, if elraglusib is approved, we will need to scale up a cost-effective and reliable cold chain distribution and logistics network, which we may be unable to accomplish and which will require us to rely on third-party distributors. Failure to scale up our cold chain supply logistics, by us or third parties, could in the future lead to additional manufacturing costs and delays in our ability to supply required quantities for commercial supply.

We have no prior experience as a company with the marketing, sale or distribution of biopharmaceutical products and there are significant risks involved in the building and managing of a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to and develop appropriate compliance programs for sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may not be able to enter into collaborations or hire consultants or external service providers to assist us in sales, marketing and distribution functions on acceptable financial terms, or at all. In addition, our product revenue and our profitability, if any, may be lower if we rely on third parties for these functions than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we are not successful in commercializing our products, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.

If we are unable to establish relationships with licensees or collaborators to carry out sales, marketing, and distribution functions or to create effective marketing, sales, and distribution capabilities, we will be unable to market our products successfully. 

Our business strategy may include selling product candidates, out-licensing product candidates to or collaborating with larger firms with experience in marketing and selling pharmaceutical products. There can be no assurance that we will successfully be able to establish marketing, sales, or distribution relationships with any third-party, that such relationships, if established, will be successful, or that we will be successful in gaining market acceptance for any products we might develop. To the extent that we enter into any marketing, sales, or distribution arrangements with third parties, our product revenues per unit sold are expected to be lower than if we marketed, sold, and distributed our products directly, and any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties.

The successful commercialization of elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish coverage, adequate reimbursement levels and favorable pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue. 

The availability of coverage and the adequacy of reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved. Our ability to achieve coverage and acceptable levels of reimbursement for our products by third-party payors will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize those products. Accordingly, we will need to successfully implement a coverage and reimbursement strategy for any approved product candidate. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high.

If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs, in certain circumstances, our products would be subject to ceiling prices set by such programs, which could reduce the revenue we may generate from any such products. Participation in such programs would also expose us to the risk of significant civil monetary penalties, sanctions and fines should we be found to be in violation of any applicable obligations thereunder.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for biopharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our products as substitutable and offer to reimburse patients only for the less expensive product. Even if we are successful in demonstrating improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our products, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our products. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs will be covered. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for elraglusib or any future product candidates.

Obtaining and maintaining reimbursement status is time-consuming, costly and uncertain. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs. However, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, and, in some cases, at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved in these jurisdictions. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our products. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our products. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our products due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, and prescription drugs, surgical procedures and other treatments in particular, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates, we will be subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws; these laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. Fraud and abuse laws are expected to increase in breadth and in detail, which will likely increase our operating costs and the complexity of our programs to ensure compliance with such enhanced laws. 

If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations may be directly, or indirectly through our customers, distributors, or other business partners, subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, anti-kickback statutes and false claims statutes which may increase our operating costs. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct business.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state fraud and abuse laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to criminal actions and significant civil monetary penalties, which would adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. 

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, anti-kickback statutes and false claims statutes or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our product candidates are ultimately sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property 

We may not be able to enforce our intellectual property rights throughout the world. 

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to life sciences. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market elraglusib or any future products. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate. In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in the United States and foreign countries may affect our ability to obtain and enforce adequate intellectual property protection for our products and technology.

If we and our third-party licensors do not obtain and preserve protection for key intellectual property rights, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our (and our licensors’) development efforts. 

We rely, and may in the future rely, upon a combination of patent, trade secret and trademark protection for elraglusib and any future product candidates and proprietary technologies to prevent third parties from exploiting our achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. These legal measures afford only limited protection, and competitors or others may gain access to or use our intellectual property and proprietary information to our detriment. Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, expand, enforce, and defend the scope, ownership or control, validity and enforceability of our intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to elraglusib and any future product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop. We may also seek to protect our proprietary position by acquiring or in-licensing relevant issued patents or pending patent applications from third parties. We have licensed patents on the original composition of matter patents covering elraglusib from UIC. In addition, we own and have filed several new composition of matter patent applications that cover elraglusib polymorphs, which expire in 2038, with possibility for patent term extensions (“PTEs”).

The patent process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include without limitation the following:

In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and patent offices in other jurisdictions have often required that patent applications concerning pharmaceutical and/or biotechnology-related inventions be limited or narrowed substantially to cover only the specific innovations exemplified in the patent application, thereby limiting their scope of protection against competitive challenges. Thus, even if we or our licensors are able to obtain patents, the patents may be substantially narrower than anticipated.

If we permit our patents to lapse or expire, we will not be protected and will have less of a competitive advantage. The value of our products may be greatly reduced if this occurs.

Our patents expire at different times and are subject to the laws of multiple countries. Some of our patents are currently near expiration and we may pursue PTEs for these where appropriate.

In addition to patents, we also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how. While we take measures to protect this information by entering into confidentiality and invention agreements with our consultants and collaborators, we cannot provide any assurances that these agreements will be fully enforceable and will not be breached, that we will be able to protect ourselves from the harmful effects of disclosure if they are not fully enforceable or are breached, that any remedy for a breach will adequately compensate us, that these agreements will achieve their intended aims, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. If any of these events for which we cannot provide assurances occurs, or we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, the value of this information may be greatly reduced.

The patent protection we obtain and preserve for our product candidates may not be sufficient to provide us with any competitive advantage. 

We may be subject to competition despite the existence of intellectual property we license or own. We can give no assurances that our intellectual property claims will be sufficient to prevent third parties from designing around patents we own or license and developing and commercializing competitive products. The existence of competitive products that avoid our intellectual property could materially and adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. Furthermore, limitations, or perceived limitations, in our intellectual property may impact our ability to maintain a competitive edge in the market. While we hold patents and licenses, there’s no guarantee that they will fully protect us from competitors who find ways to work around our intellectual property. If other companies create products that avoid infringing on our patents, it could significantly affect our financial performance.

Intellectual property disputes could require us to spend time and money to address such disputes and could limit our intellectual property rights. 

The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our current and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued. Any issued patents may not afford sufficient protection of elraglusib or any future product candidates or their intended uses against competitors, nor can there be any assurance that the issued patents will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated by third parties, or effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products or elraglusib or any future product candidates. Further, even if these patents are granted, they may be difficult to enforce. Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, information disclosure, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated if we fail to comply with these requirements. In the event we experience noncompliance events that cannot be corrected, and we lose our patent rights, competitors could enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

The biopharmaceutical industry has been characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights, and companies have employed intellectual property litigation and USPTO post-grant proceedings to gain a competitive advantage. We may become subject to infringement claims or litigation arising out of patents and pending applications of our competitors, or additional interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine the priority and patentability of inventions. The defense and prosecution of intellectual property suits, USPTO proceedings, and related legal and administrative proceedings are costly and time-consuming to pursue, and their outcome is uncertain. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description or non-enablement. In addition, patent validity challenges may, under certain circumstances, be based upon non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting, which, if successful, could result in a finding that the claims are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting or the loss of patent term, including a patent term adjustment granted by the USPTO. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Litigation may be necessary to enforce our issued patents, to protect our trade secrets and know-how, or to determine the enforceability, scope, and validity of the proprietary rights of others. An adverse determination in litigation or USPTO post-grant and interference proceedings to which we may become a party could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to obtain licenses from third parties, or restrict or prevent us from selling our products in certain markets. Even if a given patent or intellectual property dispute were settled through licensing or similar arrangements, our costs associated with such arrangements may be substantial and could include the payment by us of large, fixed payments and ongoing royalties. Furthermore, the necessary licenses may not be available on satisfactory terms or at all. Even where we have meritorious claims or defenses, the costs of litigation may prevent us from pursuing these claims or defenses and/or may require extensive financial and personnel resources to pursue these claims or defenses. In addition, it is possible there may be defects of form in our current and future patents that could result in our inability to defend the intended claims. Intellectual property disputes arising from the aforementioned factors, or other factors, may materially harm our business.

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, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them. Despite these efforts, these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. 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, including in foreign jurisdictions, are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. 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 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.

Changes to the patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates. 

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other jurisdictions may diminish our ability to protect our intellectual property, obtain, maintain, expand, enforce and defend our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our protection. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we currently or may in the future pursue or may in-license will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction, whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection against competitors or other third parties, or if these patents are challenged by our competitors, whether the patents will be found to be invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed or not owned or controlled by us. The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, defend or license all necessary or desirable patent applications or patents at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide ranging patent reform legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, as well as other jurisdictions around the world, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements. 

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect the competitive position of elraglusib or any future product candidates for an adequate amount of time. 

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional or international patent application filing date. The patent term of a U.S. patent may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent.

Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering elraglusib or any future product candidates are obtained, once the patent has expired, we may be vulnerable to competition from competitive products, including generics. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of elraglusib or any future product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized.

In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a PTE of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent to compensate patent owners for loss of enforceable patent term due to the lengthy regulatory approval process. A PTE grant cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product approval. Further, PTE may only be applied once per product, and only with respect to an approved indication - in other words, only one patent (for example, covering the product itself, an approved use of said product, or a method of manufacturing said product) can be extended by PTE. We anticipate applying for PTE in the United States. Similar extensions may be available in other countries where we are prosecuting patents, and we likewise anticipate applying for such extensions.

The granting of such PTEs is not guaranteed and is subject to numerous requirements. We might not be granted an extension because of, for example, failure to apply within applicable periods, failure to apply prior to the expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failure to satisfy any of the numerous applicable requirements. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue PTE based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. Moreover, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launching their product earlier than might otherwise be the case. If this were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue.

If we fail to comply with our license, collaboration or other intellectual property-related agreements, we may incur damages and could lose rights that may be necessary for developing, commercializing and protecting our current or future technologies or drug candidates or granting sublicenses.

Any license, collaboration or other intellectual property-related agreements impose, and any future license, collaboration or other intellectual property-related agreements we enter into are likely to impose, various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement or other obligations on us. If we breach any of these obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. In spite of our best efforts, any of our future licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technologies covered by these license agreements. Any license agreements we enter into may be complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may seek to obtain licenses from licensors in the future, however, we may be unable to obtain any such licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In addition, if any of our future licensors terminate any such license agreements, such license termination could result in our inability to develop, manufacture and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology or could enable a competitor to gain access to the licensed technology. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and ability to achieve profitability.

Furthermore, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications that we license from third parties. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our future licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend patents we may in-license, or lose rights to licensed patents or patent applications, our license rights may be reduced or eliminated. In such circumstances, our right to develop and commercialize any of our products or drug candidates that is the subject of such licensed rights could be materially adversely affected. In certain circumstances, our licensed patent rights are subject to our reimbursing our licensors for their patent prosecution and maintenance costs.

Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the licensor’s intellectual property rights and the amount of any damages or future royalty obligations that would result, if any such claims were successful, would depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, due to such obligations, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

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

We may be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, licensees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patent rights, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor, co-inventor or owner of trade secrets. For example, we may have inventorship or ownership disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing elraglusib or any future product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership or our patent rights, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as ownership of, or the right to use intellectual property that is important to elraglusib or any future product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse impact on the success of our business. 

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability or the ability of any of our future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our current or any future drug candidates and to use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the proprietary and intellectual property rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights.

We or any of our future licensors or strategic partners, may be party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or any potential future drug candidates and technologies, including derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in jurisdictions outside of the United States such as opposition proceedings. If we or our licensors or strategic partners are unsuccessful in any interference proceedings or other priority or validity disputes (including through any patent oppositions) to which we or they are subject, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights through the loss of one or more patents or our patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. In some instances, we may be required to indemnify our licensors or strategic partners for the costs associated with any such adversarial proceedings or litigation. Third parties may also assert infringement, misappropriation or other claims against us, our licensors or our strategic partners based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, as well as other intellectual property rights, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation or other adversarial proceedings with us, our licensors or our strategic partners to enforce or otherwise assert their patent rights or other intellectual property rights. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents and other intellectual property rights are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could have a material adverse impact on our ability to utilize our developed technologies or to commercialize our current or any future drug candidates deemed to be infringing. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity by presenting clear and convincing evidence of invalidity. There is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction, even if presented with evidence we believe to be clear and convincing, will agree with our position on the validity of any U.S. patent.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our current or future technologies or drug candidates, and we might be required to litigate or obtain licenses from third parties to develop or market our current or future technologies or drug candidates, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. 

There are numerous companies that have pending patent applications and issued patents broadly covering small molecules directed against the same targets as, or targets similar to, those we are pursuing. Our competitive position may materially suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third-party intellectual property rights cover our current or future technologies, drug candidates or elements thereof, or our manufacture or uses relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize current or future technologies or drug candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property rights concerned, or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property rights holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms. There may be issued patents of which we are not aware, held by third parties that, if found to be valid and enforceable, could be alleged to be infringed by our current or future technologies or drug candidates. There also may be pending patent applications of which we are not aware that may result in issued patents, which could be alleged to be infringed by our current or future technologies or drug candidates.

Should such an infringement claim be successfully brought, we may be required to pay substantial damages or be forced to abandon our current or future technologies or drug candidates or to seek a license from any patent holders. No assurances can be given that a license will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Third-party intellectual property rights holders may also actively bring infringement, misappropriation or other claims alleging violations of intellectual property rights against us. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or to continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from, or experience substantial delays in, marketing our drug candidates. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our current or future technologies or drug candidates that are held to be infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating third-party intellectual property rights. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign current or future technologies or drug candidates so that we no longer infringe, misappropriate or violate the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property. 

Some of our employees, consultants and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Some intellectual property which we own or have licensed, or which may acquire or license in the future, may have been, or may be, discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for United States industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, subject us to expenditure of resources with respect to reporting requirements and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers. 

Some of the intellectual property rights we own or have licensed, or which we may acquire or license in the future, have been or may be generated using U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future products and product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. In addition, the U.S. government may acquire title to these inventions in any country in which a patent application is not filed within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced using the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property and such requirement may be subject to interpretation as to compliance with the notion that a product is “substantially” manufactured in the United States when components are sourced elsewhere and finally assembled or formulated within the United States. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights, or breach by us with respect to our obligations to comply with applicable requirements, could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Industry 

If we lose key management leadership, and/or scientific personnel, and if we cannot recruit qualified employees, managers, directors, officers, or other significant personnel, we may experience program delays and increases in compensation costs, and our business may be materially disrupted. 

Our future success is highly dependent on the continued service of principal members of our management, leadership, and scientific personnel, who are able to terminate their employment with us at any time and may be able to compete with us. The loss of any of our key management, leadership, or scientific personnel including, in particular, Daniel M, Schmitt, our President and CEO, and Andrew P. Mazar, Ph.D., our Chief Operating Officer, could materially disrupt our business and materially delay or prevent the successful product development and commercialization of our product candidates. We have employment agreements with Mr. Schmitt and Dr. Mazar which have no term but are for at-will employment, meaning the executives have the ability to terminate their employment at any time.

Our Chief Financial Officer, Paul Lytle, was appointed in February 2024 and had been providing such services as a consultant rather than as a full-time employee, following his consulting engagement to assist with our finance and accounting matters from December 20, 2023. We entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Lytle under which he became a full-time employee effective June 1, 2024. In addition, Mr. Lytle is also co-founder of a private biopharmaceutical company, where he currently also serves as its chief financial officer, as well as a co-founder of a public development-stage biotechnology company, where he currently serves on its board of directors and as its executive vice president, chief financial officer. While we believe that Mr. Lytle will devote adequate time to our business to perform the role and duties of our Chief Financial Officer, we cannot guarantee that he will continue to do so in the future. Additionally, while we do not believe that Mr. Lytle currently faces any conflicts of interest, including conflicts in allocating time to our business, Mr. Lytle may face conflicts of interest in the future. If Mr. Lytle cannot devote adequate time to us to fulfill his role and duties as Chief Financial Officer or if any conflicts of interest arise, it could have a material adverse impact on our operations.

Our future success will also depend on our continuing ability to identify, hire, and retain highly skilled personnel for all areas of the organization. Competition in the biopharmaceutical industry for scientifically and technically qualified personnel is intense, and we may be unsuccessful in identifying, hiring, and retaining qualified personnel. Our continued requirement to identify, hire, and retain highly competent personnel may cause our compensation costs to increase materially. As of December 31, 2024, we had ten (10) full-time employees. As our clinical development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we will need to expand our managerial, clinical, regulatory, sales, marketing, financial, development, manufacturing and legal capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic collaborators, suppliers and other third parties. Our future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our ability to continue to develop and, if approved, commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth. Our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including contract manufacturers and companies focused on research and development activities. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality, accuracy or quantity of the services provided is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain, or may be substantially delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business.

Competition and technological change may make our product candidates less competitive or obsolete. 

The biopharmaceutical industry is subject to rapid technological change. We have many potential competitors, including major drug and chemical companies, specialized biopharmaceutical firms, universities and other research institutions. These companies, firms, and other institutions may develop products that are more effective than our product candidates or that would make our product candidates less competitive or obsolete. Many of these companies, firms, and other institutions have greater financial resources than us and may be better able to withstand and respond to adverse market conditions within the biopharmaceutical industry, including without limitation the lengthy regulatory approval process for product candidates.

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

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major biopharmaceutical companies, specialty biopharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

A highly effective treatment for cancer is a desirable target for the pharmaceutical industry. There is significant activity in this space. Although none of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in current clinical trials are directed toward the mechanism of action of elraglusib, there can be no assurance that a large biopharmaceutical or biotechnology company will not pursue the commercialization or development of products competitive with elraglusib in the future. Many of these potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do.

Mergers and acquisitions in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our potential competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, more convenient, or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors. The availability of competitive products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.

As a recently established entity, we have a limited operating history. 

We have engaged exclusively in licensing rights to product candidates and entering into collaboration agreements with respect to key services or technologies for our drug product development, and have not received any governmental approvals, brought any product to market, manufactured products commercial quantities or sold any pharmaceutical products. As a company, we have limited experience in negotiating, establishing, and maintaining strategic relationships, conducting clinical trials, and managing the regulatory approval process, all of which will be necessary if we are to be successful. Our lack of experience in these critical areas makes it difficult for a prospective investor to evaluate our abilities and increases the risk that we will fail to successfully execute our strategies.

Furthermore, if our business grows rapidly, our operational, managerial, legal, and financial resources will be strained. Our development will require continued improvement and expansion of our management team and our operational, managerial, legal, and financial systems and controls.

In the normal course of business, we have evaluated and expect to evaluate potential acquisitions and/or licenses of patents, compounds, and technologies that our management believes could complement or expand our business. We have a limited history of conducting acquisitions and negotiating and acquiring licenses. In the event that we identify an acquisition or license candidate we find attractive, there is no assurance that we will be successful in negotiating an agreement to acquire or license, or in financing or profitably exploiting, such patents, compounds, or technologies. Furthermore, such an acquisition or license could divert management time and resources away from other activities that would further our current business development.

We may be subject to various U.S. federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations, which could increase compliance costs, and our failure to comply with these laws and regulations could harm our reputation, subject us to significant fines and liability or otherwise adversely affect our business. 

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers expose us to broadly applicable foreign, federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain regulatory approval. Such laws include:

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare and privacy laws and regulations will involve ongoing substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including certain consulting agreements and advisory board agreements we have entered into with physicians who are paid, in part, in the form of stock or stock options, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. Due to the breadth of these laws, the narrowness of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, and the range of interpretations to which they are subject, it is possible that some of our current or future practices might be challenged under one or more of these laws. 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 penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws or regulations, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

The U.S. Congress, the Trump administration, or any new administration may make substantial changes to fiscal, tax, and other federal policies that may adversely affect our business.

Changes to U.S. policy implemented by the U.S. Congress, the Trump administration or any new administration have impacted and may in the future impact, among other things, the U.S. and global economy, international trade relations, unemployment, immigration, healthcare, taxation, the U.S. regulatory environment, inflation and other areas. Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has taken dramatic steps to freeze some federal funding and reduce the size of the federal workforce. It is not possible to predict the outcome of this congressional, executive, or regulatory activity, any of which could adversely affect us. Similarly, we cannot predict whether pending or future federal or state legislation or court proceedings will change various aspects of current government programs, nor can we predict the impact any such changes will have on our business operations or financial results, but the effects could be materially adverse. In addition, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the new Trump administration can result in changes in the funding, operations and policies of the FDA and other federal agencies, which may negatively impact our clinical development plans, timelines, and the cost of product development.

We are an emerging growth company and a smaller reporting company, and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors. 

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the JOBS Act, and may remain an emerging growth company until the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the IPO. However, if certain events occur prior to the end of such five-year period, including if we become a “large accelerated filer”, as defined under the Exchange Act, our annual gross revenue exceeds $1.235 billion or we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt in any three-year period, we will cease to be an emerging growth company prior to the end of such five-year period. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:

We have taken advantage of reduced reporting burdens in this Report. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be reduced or more volatile. In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of these accounting standards until they would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected to avail ourselves of this exemption and, therefore, we may not be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. We intend to rely on other exemptions provided by the JOBS Act, including, without limitation, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley.

We are also a smaller reporting company as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and will be able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures for so long as our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

We may engage in strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.

From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as acquisitions of companies, asset purchases, and out-licensing or in-licensing of products, product candidates or technologies. Additional potential transactions that we may consider include a variety of different business arrangements, including spin-offs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. Any such transaction may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, may increase our near- and long-term expenditures and may pose significant integration challenges or disrupt our management or business, which could adversely affect our operations and financial results. For example, these transactions may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:

Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial costs to defend them and address any damages awarded, and demand for our products could be reduced as a result of such lawsuits. 

The testing and marketing of medical products is subject to an inherent risk of product liability claims, including a possibility in some states for product liability claims being made based on generic copies of our drugs. While we do have liability insurance coverage, regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

Our information technology systems, or those of any of our service providers, may fail or suffer security incidents and other disruptions, which could result in a material disruption of our development programs, compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information, potentially exposing us to liability or otherwise adversely affecting our business. 

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit confidential information (including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary and confidential business information and personal information). Our information technology systems and those of our third-party service providers, strategic partners and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to attack, damage and interruption from computer viruses and malware (e.g. ransomware), malicious code, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, hacking, cyberattacks, phishing attacks and other social engineering schemes, employee theft or misuse, human error, fraud, denial or degradation of service attacks, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors or unauthorized access or use by persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. In addition, attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security incidents that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence.

We and certain of our service providers are from time to time subject to cyberattacks and security incidents. While we do not believe that we have experienced any material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if any such event, whether actual or perceived, were to occur, it could impact our reputation and/or operations, cause us to incur significant costs, including legal expenses, harm customer confidence, hurt our expansion into new markets, cause us to incur remediation costs, or cause us to lose existing customers. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. We also rely on a third party to manufacture elraglusib, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any actual or perceived disruption or security incident affects our systems (or those of our third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants) or were to result in a loss of or accidental, unlawful or unauthorized access to, use of, release of, or other processing of personally identifiable information, or damage to, our confidential or proprietary data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, the further development and commercialization of elraglusib or any future product candidates could be delayed, and we could be subject to significant fines, penalties or liabilities for any noncompliance to certain privacy and security laws.

We have also outsourced elements of our information technology infrastructure, and as a result a number of third-party vendors may or could have access to our confidential information. If our third-party vendors fail to protect their information technology systems and our confidential and proprietary information, we may be vulnerable to disruptions in service and unauthorized access to our confidential or proprietary information and we could incur liability and reputational damage. If the information technology systems of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring. Some of the federal, state and foreign government requirements include obligations of companies to notify individuals of security breaches involving particular categories of personally identifiable information, which could result from incidents experienced by us or by our vendors, contractors, or organizations with which we have formed strategic relationships. Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. Although we currently hold cybersecurity insurance, the costs related to significant security breaches or disruptions could be material and cause us to incur significant expenses.

Failure to comply with health privacy and other data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. 

We and our service providers maintain and will maintain a large quantity of sensitive and/or regulated information, including confidential business and patient health information, personal data about our employees and collaborators, and information relating to our clinical trials. The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we, our service providers and our collaborators may be affected by or subject to existing, amended, or new laws and regulations in the future, including as our operations continue to expand or if we operate in foreign jurisdictions. These laws and regulations may be subject to differing interpretations, thus creating potentially complex compliance issues for us and our service providers, strategic partners and future customers. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws (e.g., HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH), state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, or other privacy and data security laws. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. State legislatures in Washington, Nevada, and Connecticut have recently enacted legislation to protect consumer health information that is not covered by HIPAA. In addition to detailed and specific requirements for the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and safeguarding of consumer health data, the Washington My Health My Data Act (“MHMDA”) (effective March 31, 2024) provides a private right of action to consumers for violations of the Act.

Our uses of personal data may also be subject to state comprehensive data privacy laws, including, without limitation, the California Consumer Privacy Act and regulations promulgated thereunder (“CCPA”), which came into effect in 2020. At the start of 2023, the CCPA was expanded in several ways, including by extending its application to employees, job applicants and business-to-business contacts in addition to consumers. The CCPA requires us to make disclosures about our data collection, use, and sharing practices with respect to personal information, and allows California residents to request access, deletion and correction of their personal data, as well as providing the right to opt out of certain data use and sharing practices. The CCPA is primarily enforced by the California Privacy Protection Agency and the California Attorney General, which have the power to seek penalties of up to $7,500 per violation. The CCPA also allows the recovery of statutory damages in the event of a data breach. Ongoing rulemaking by the California Privacy Protection Agency is likely to result in additional requirements, increasing the level of risk associated with CCPA compliance.

Several other U.S. states have also passed comprehensive data privacy laws, which are currently in effect or will take effect over the next few years. Generally, these laws apply to consumer personal data. For example, Virginia enacted the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2023; Colorado enacted the Colorado Privacy Act, which came into effect on July 1, 2023; Connecticut enacted the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, which came into effect on July 1, 2023; and Utah enacted the Utah Consumer Privacy Act, which came into effect on December 31, 2023. Other states have enacted similar laws that will come into effect on future dates: Texas has enacted the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (effective July 1, 2024); Florida has enacted the Florida Digital Bill of Rights (effective July 1, 2024); Oregon has passed the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act (effective July 1, 2024); Montana has enacted the Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (effective October 1, 2024); Iowa has enacted the Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act (effective January 1, 2025); the New Hampshire Legislature has passed the New Hampshire Privacy Act (effective January 1, 2025); Delaware has enacted the Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (effective January 1, 2025); New Jersey has enacted New Jersey S332/A1971 (effective January 15, 2025); Tennessee has enacted the Tennessee Information Protection Act (effective July 1, 2025); and Indiana has enacted the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (effective January 1, 2026). Similar legislation is pending in several other states. At a high level, these comprehensive state privacy laws require us to make new disclosures about personal data collection, use, and sharing practices and to adjust or develop internal compliance measures, such as those related to personal data security, vendor contracting, personal data retention and privacy assessments. They grant certain privacy rights to consumers, including the rights to access, collect and delete personal data. Consumers also have opt-in and opt-out rights that vary based on the applicable state law and the type of personal data, but broadly include the ability to tell a company not to use personal data for targeted advertising or not to sell personal data, which can include sales for monetary or other valuable consideration in most states. These state comprehensive privacy laws are generally enforced by state attorneys general, and typically provide for fines of up to $7,500 per violation, with higher penalties in some states.

In addition, several states and localities have enacted statutes restricting the collection and use of biometric information. For example, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), Texas Biometric Privacy Act, the Washington Biometric Privacy Law, and the Washington MHMDA regulate the collection, use, safeguarding, and storage of biometric information and provide for substantial penalties and statutory damages, with BIPA and MHMDA also creating a private right of action for violations. Since its enactment, BIPA has generated significant class action activity.

International data protection laws may also apply to health-related and other personal information we collect. In the EU, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, and other processing of personal data is governed by the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“EU GDPR”), which came into effect in May 2018. The GDPR has also been implemented in the UK (“UK GDPR,” and together with the EU GDPR, the “GDPR”). The GDPR, among other things, imposes: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, which require controllers to demonstrate and record compliance with the GDPR and provide detailed information to data subjects regarding processing of personal data; (ii) requirements for obtaining valid consent; (iii) obligations to consider data protection as new products or services are developed and to limit the amount of personal data processed; (iv) obligations to comply with data protection rights of data subjects including a right of access to and rectification of personal data, a right to obtain restriction of processing or to object to processing of personal data, and a right to ask for a copy of personal data to be provided to a third party in a useable format and erasing personal data in certain circumstances; (v) obligations to implement appropriate technical and organizational security measures to safeguard personal data; and (vi) obligations to report certain personal data breaches to the relevant supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours where feasible). Both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR prohibit the transfer of personal data to other countries that are not recognized as having “adequate” data protection laws. For personal data transfers from the EU or UK to the United States, additional safeguards such as adoption of standard contractual clauses or compliance with the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (DPF) and the UK and Swiss extensions of the DPF are required. Data transfers from the EU to the US have been the subject or repeated legal challenges, including a July 2020 decision by the Court of Justice of the EU that invalidated a prior transfer mechanism known as Privacy Shield. The EU GDPR provides for fines for violations of up to the higher of 4% of annual worldwide turnover or €20,000,000 (and in respect of the UK GDPR, GBP17,500,000). The GDPR identifies a list of points to consider when determining the level of fines to impose (including the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement). Data subjects also have a right to compensation for financial or non-financial losses (e.g., distress).

Other countries in which we have or plan to do business have also enacted laws regulating the collection, use, disclosure, transfer and processing of personal data. For example, China has enacted the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) and Cybersecurity Law, Canada the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”), Australia the Privacy Act 1988 (the “Australian Privacy Act”), Japan the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (“APPI”), Brazil the General Data Protection Law (“LGPD”), and Mexico the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data held by Private Parties (“FLPPDPP”), all of which govern the collection, use, disclosure and transfer of personal data. Other countries have already enacted, or considering enacting, similar legislation. To the extent that the GDPR, PIPL, Chinese Cybersecurity Law, PIPEDA, Australian Privacy Act, APPI, LGPD, FLPPDPP, and similar laws apply or will in the future apply to us, complying with their requirements may require substantial amendments to our procedures and policies. The changes could adversely impact our business by increasing its operational and compliance costs, and further, there is a risk that the measures will not be implemented correctly or that individuals within the business will not be fully compliant with the new procedures.

The legal framework around privacy issues is rapidly evolving, as various federal, state and foreign government bodies are considering adopting new privacy laws and regulations and providing guidance on current laws and regulations, which could result in significant limitations on or changes to the ways in which we can collect, use, host, store, or transmit personal data. Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected. 

Our research and development and drug candidates and future commercial manufacturing may involve the use of hazardous materials and various chemicals. We currently do not maintain a research laboratory, but we engage third-party research organizations and manufacturers to conduct our preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing. These third-party laboratories and manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. We must rely on the third parties’ procedures for storing, handling and disposing of these materials in their facilities to comply with the relevant guidelines of the states in which they operate and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Although we believe that their safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, this could result in significant delays in our development. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety 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, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation or regulation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain coverage for and commercialize elraglusib or any future product candidates and may adversely affect the prices we may set. 

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system, including cost-containment measures that may reduce or limit coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs and affect our ability to profitably sell elraglusib or any future product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare.

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (“ACA”) was enacted in the United States. The ACA established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B drug pricing program; increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; established a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, beginning April 1, 2013, Medicare payments to providers were reduced under the sequestration required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory cap on the Medicaid drug rebate, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price. Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products.

Most recently, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA (i) directs the HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined but is likely to be significant. Additional drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for elraglusib and any future product candidates, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We expect that these existing laws and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize elraglusib or any future product candidates, if approved.

Even if we are able to commercialize any drug candidate, such drug candidate may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which would harm our business. 

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, such as government authorities, private healthcare insurers and health maintenance organizations. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private healthcare insurers are critical to new product acceptance. Patients are unlikely to use our future products, if any, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost.

Cost-containment is a priority in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere. As a result, government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors also may request additional clinical evidence beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval, requiring a company to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of its products.

Commercial third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products in the United States can differ significantly from payor to payor. We cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be adequate. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

Additionally, the regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more drug candidates, even if our drug candidates obtain regulatory approval.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business. 

The ability of the FDA and other government agencies to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, a government agency’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the government agency’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA and other government agencies have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new biologics or modifications to approved or licensed biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Moreover, action by the Trump Administration to limit federal agency budgets or personnel, may result in reductions to the FDA’s budget, employees, and operations, which may lead to slower response times and longer review periods, potentially affecting our ability to progress development of our product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA postponed most inspections of domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities at various points. Even though the FDA has since resumed standard inspection operations of domestic facilities where feasible, future pandemics may lead to similar inspectional or administrative delays. If any future prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business is subject to risks arising from pandemics and epidemic diseases. 

The COVID-19 worldwide pandemic presented substantial public health and economic challenges and affected our employees, patients, physicians and other healthcare providers, communities and business operations, as well as the U.S. and global economies and financial markets. Any future pandemic or epidemic disease outbreaks could disrupt the supply chain and the manufacture or shipment of drug substances and finished drug products for elraglusib or any future product candidates for use in our, our collaborators’ or any future collaborators’ clinical trials and research and preclinical studies and, delay, limit or prevent our employees and CROs from continuing research and development activities, impede our clinical trial initiation and recruitment and the ability of patients to continue in clinical trials, alter the results of the clinical trial based on participants contracting the disease or otherwise increasing the number of observed adverse events, impede testing, monitoring, data collection and analysis and other related activities, any of which could delay our preclinical studies and clinical trials and increase our development costs, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Any future pandemic or epidemic disease outbreak could also potentially further affect the business of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in delays in meetings related to our planned clinical trials, as well have an adverse impact on global economic conditions which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition, including impairing our ability to raise capital when needed.

Effective collaboration with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (“CDER”) for the approval of drug candidates is a highly demanding process which can result in increased time and expense to gain approvals.

Our lead drug development program, elraglusib, will be reviewed by CDER. Efficient and professional collaboration with the FDA’s CDER is essential for the timely clinical testing, test evaluations, analysis and approval of our drug candidates. CDER has an outstanding record of drug approvals and substantial funds to operate a highly professional organization but is also very demanding as to the quality of clinical research and applications for marketing approvals for drug candidates.

We do not have in-house expertise and experience in the management of drug approvals, though members of our management team have gained certain drug-approval expertise and experience in their prior roles at other companies. We may also rely on qualified consultants and drug research organizations to aid in our drug approval process; however, there is a meaningful risk that discussions and interactions inherent in the drug approval process and future developments or new improvements will result in delays, added expenses and new scientific/medical requirements which will cause adverse financial results and will likely impact the price of our stock.

Our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes may be limited in connection with the IPO or other ownership changes. 

We have incurred substantial losses during our history, do not expect to become profitable in the near future and may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2024, we had net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards, which may be available to offset our future taxable income, if any. Our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes are subject to review and possible adjustment by the Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities.

In addition, under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, our federal NOL carryforwards may be or become subject to an annual limitation in the event we have had or have in the future an “ownership change.” For these purposes, an “ownership change” generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who own at least 5% of a company’s stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a rolling three-year period. The annual limitation amount is determined based on the Company’s value immediately prior to the ownership change. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. Although we believe there have been one or more ownership changes resulting from past transactions, we have not determined the amount of the cumulative change in our ownership resulting from the IPO or other transactions, or any resulting limitations on our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes. However, we believe that our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes to offset future taxable income or tax liabilities may be limited as a result of ownership changes, including potential changes in connection with the IPO. If we earn taxable income, such limitations could result in increased future income tax liability to us and our future cash flows could be adversely affected.

We have recorded a full valuation allowance related to our NOL carryforwards and other deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the ultimate realization of the future benefits of those assets.

Foreign currency exchange rates may adversely affect our consolidated financial statements. 

Our primary operations are transacted in U.S. Dollars, but certain service agreements with third parties are denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar, primarily the British pound and the Euro. All of our employees and operations are currently located in the United States and our expenses are generally denominated in U.S. Dollars. As we continue to develop our business, our results of operations and cash flows will likely be more affected by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, including the British pound, Euro and other currencies, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Sales and purchases in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar expose us to fluctuations in foreign currencies relative to the U.S. Dollar and may adversely affect our consolidated financial statements. Increased strength of the U.S. Dollar increases the effective price of our future drug products sold in U.S. Dollars into other countries, which may require us to lower our prices or adversely affect sales to the extent we do not increase local currency prices. Decreased strength of the U.S. Dollar could adversely affect the cost of materials, products and services we purchase overseas. Sales and expenses of our non-U.S. businesses are also translated into U.S. Dollars for reporting purposes and the strengthening or weakening of the U.S. Dollar could result in unfavorable foreign currency translation and transaction effects. In addition, certain of our businesses may in the future invoice customers in a currency other than the business’ functional currency, and movements in the invoiced currency relative to the functional currency could also result in unfavorable foreign currency translation and transaction effects. We also face exchange rate risk from our investments in subsidiaries owned and operated in foreign countries.

Our anticipated operating expenses and capital expenditures are based upon our management’s estimates of possible future events. Actual amounts could differ materially from those estimated. 

Development of pharmaceuticals and cancer drugs is extremely risky and unpredictable. We have estimated operating expenses and capital expenditures over the next year based on certain assumptions. Any change in the assumptions could and will cause the actual results to vary substantially from the anticipated expenses and expenditures and could result in material differences in actual versus forecasted expenses or expenditures. Furthermore, all of the factors are subject to the effect of unforeseeable future events. The estimates of operating expenses and capital expenditures represent forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Prospective investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties. Actual events or results may differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including the risk factors set forth under this “Risk Factors” section in this Report. In view of the foregoing, investors should not rely on these estimates in making a decision to invest in us.

Our present and potential future international operations may expose us to business, political, operational, and financial risks associated with doing business outside of the United States. 

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Some of our suppliers and clinical research organizations and clinical trial sites are located outside of the United States. Furthermore, if we or any future collaborator succeeds in developing any products, we anticipate marketing them in the EU and other jurisdictions in addition to the United States. If approved, we or our collaborator may hire sales representatives and conduct physician and patient association outreach activities outside of the United States. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Any of these factors could harm our ongoing international clinical operations and supply chain, as well as any future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to operate in foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties. 

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize elraglusib or any future drug candidates in foreign markets for which we may rely on partnering with third parties. We will not be permitted to market or promote elraglusib or any future drug candidate before we receive regulatory approval from the applicable regulatory authority in a foreign market, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for elraglusib or any future drug candidate. To obtain separate regulatory approval in foreign countries, we generally must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of elraglusib or any future drug candidate, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. Approval procedures may be more onerous than those in the United States and may require that we conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. If we obtain approval of any of our current or potential future drug candidates and ultimately commercialize any such drug candidate in foreign markets, we would be subject to risks and uncertainties, including the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements, foreign reimbursement, pricing, and insurance regimes, workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is common, production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad, business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, public health pandemics or epidemics, or natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires, and the reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries.

Risks Associated to our Common Stock

Concentration of ownership by our principal stockholders limits the ability of others to influence the outcome of director elections and other transactions requiring stockholder approval, creates the potential for conflicts of interest, may negatively impact our stock price and may deter or prevent efforts by others to acquire us, preventing our stockholders from realizing a control premium.

A significant percentage of our outstanding stock is currently held by funds affiliated with our chairman, Aaron G.L. Fletcher, (the “Bios Equity Affiliated Funds”) and which beneficially own approximately 51% of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2024. As a result, the Bios Equity Affiliated Funds have a strong influence on corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the following actions:

The Bios Equity Affiliated Funds’ significant interest in us also creates the potential for conflicts of interest which may be viewed unfavorably by minority stockholders, thereby hurting our stock price. In addition, the Bios Equity Affiliated Funds are not subject to any contractual restrictions on their ability to acquire additional shares of common stock. Any future purchases of equity securities, including in connection with any rights offerings or any alternative equity or equity-linked offering that we may conduct, could result in the Bios Equity Affiliated Funds again attaining beneficial ownership of a majority of our common stock. As a result of the Bios Equity Affiliated Funds’ significant ownership and Dr. Fletcher’s position as our Chairman, others may be less inclined to pursue an acquisition of us and therefore we may not have the opportunity to be acquired in a transaction that stockholders might otherwise deem favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might realize a substantial premium for their shares.

Current and new investors will experience dilution due to future sales or issuances of our common stock.

Our employees, non-employee directors and other consultants, advisors and other persons who provide services to the Company are eligible to receive incentive awards under the 2024 Stock Incentive Plan (“2024 Plan”), including stock options grants, stock appreciation rights (“SARs”), restricted stock awards (“RSAs”), restricted stock units (“RSUs”), and other awards. As of December 31, 2024, up to a total of 3,709,790 shares of our common stock may be issued pursuant to awards issued and outstanding and awards available for grant under the 2024 Stock Incentive Plan and 2015 Stock Incentive Plan (collectively, the “Incentive Plans”). As of December 31, 2024, there were 2,385,140 shares available for grant under the Incentive Plans.

In addition, our current and our new investors will likely also experience substantial dilution resulting from the issuance by us of equity securities in connection with certain transactions, including without limitation, future offering of shares, intellectual property licensing, acquisition, or commercialization arrangements.

If our shares become subject to the penny stock rules, it would become more difficult to trade our shares. 

The SEC has adopted rules that regulate broker-dealer practices in connection with transactions in penny stocks. Penny stocks are generally equity securities with a price of less than $5.00 per share, other than securities registered on certain national securities exchanges or authorized for quotation on certain automated quotation systems, provided that current price and volume information with respect to transactions in such securities is provided by the exchange or system. If we do not retain a listing on the Nasdaq Global Market and if the price of our common stock is less than $5.00 per share, our common stock will be deemed a penny stock. The penny stock rules require a broker-dealer, before a transaction in a penny stock not otherwise exempt from those rules, to deliver a standardized risk disclosure document containing specified information. In addition, the penny stock rules require that before effecting any transaction in a penny stock not otherwise exempt from those rules, a broker-dealer must make a special written determination that the penny stock is a suitable investment for the purchaser and receive (i) the purchaser’s written acknowledgment of the receipt of a risk disclosure statement; (ii) a written agreement to transactions involving penny stocks; and (iii) a signed and dated copy of a written suitability statement. These disclosure requirements may have the effect of reducing the trading activity in the secondary market for our common stock.

There was no public market for our common stock prior to the IPO in August 2024. An active, liquid and orderly market for our common stock may not be sustained, or we may in the future fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq, and you may not be able to resell your shares at or above your purchase price or at all. 

There was no public market for our common stock prior to the IPO. Although our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, an active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other businesses or technologies using our shares as consideration, which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business.

If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq, such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price or stockholders’ equity requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to delist our common stock. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of our common stock and would impair your ability to sell or purchase our common stock when you wish to do so. In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow our common stock to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our common stock, prevent our common stock from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with the listing requirements of Nasdaq.