As used in this Annual Report, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms the “Company,” “Rafael Holdings,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Rafael Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, collectively. Each reference to a fiscal year in this Annual Report refers to the fiscal year ending in the calendar year indicated (for example, fiscal 2024 refers to the fiscal year ended July 31, 2024).

Item 1. Business.

OVERVIEW

Rafael Holdings, Inc. (“Rafael Holdings”, “Rafael”, “we” or the “Company”) is a holding company with interests in clinical and early-stage pharmaceutical companies (the “Pharmaceutical Companies”), including an investment in (and planned merger with) Cyclo Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: CYTH), (“Cyclo Therapeutics” or “Cyclo”), a clinical stage biotechnology company dedicated to developing Trappsol® Cyclo™, which is being evaluated in clinical trials for the potential treatment of Niemann-Pick Disease Type C1 (“NPC1”), a rare, fatal and progressive genetic disorder, a majority equity interest in LipoMedix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“LipoMedix”), a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, Barer Institute Inc. (“Barer”), a wholly-owned preclinical cancer metabolism research operation, and a majority interest in Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Cornerstone”), formerly known as Rafael Pharmaceuticals Inc., a cancer metabolism-based therapeutics company. We also hold a majority interest in Rafael Medical Devices, LLC. (“Rafael Medical Devices”), an orthopedic-focused medical device company developing instruments to advance minimally invasive surgeries, and a majority interest in Day Three Labs, Inc. (“Day Three”), a company which empowers third-party manufacturers to reimagine their existing cannabis offerings enabling them to bring to market better, cleaner, more precise and predictable versions by utilizing Day Three’s pharmaceutical-grade technology and innovation like Unlokt™. Day Three and Rafael Medical Devices, together with the Pharmaceutical Companies, represent our “Portfolio Companies”). In November 2022, the Company resolved to curtail its early-stage development efforts, including pre-clinical research at Barer. The decision was taken to reduce spending as the Company focuses on exploring strategic opportunities. Since then, the Company has sought partners for programs at Farber and has entered into a license agreement for one of its technologies. The Company’s primary focus is to expand our investment portfolio through opportunistic and strategic investments including therapeutics, which address high unmet medical needs. Upon closing of the planned merger with Cyclo, the Company intends to focus its efforts on making Trappsol^® Cyclo™ its lead clinical program.

Historically, the Company owned real estate assets. In 2020, the Company sold an office building located in Piscataway, New Jersey and, on August 22, 2022, the Company sold the building at 520 Broad Street in Newark, New Jersey that serves as headquarters for the Company and several tenants and an associated public garage (the “520 Property”). As of July 31, 2024, the Company holds a portion of a commercial building in Jerusalem, Israel as its sole remaining owned real estate asset.

In May 2023, the Company first invested in Cyclo Therapeutics. Cyclo is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that develops cyclodextrin-based products for the potential treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. Cyclo’s lead drug candidate is Trappsol® Cyclo™ (hydroxypropyl beta cyclodextrin), a treatment for Niemann-Pick Disease, type C1 (“NPC1”). NPC1 is a rare and fatal autosomal recessive genetic disease resulting in disrupted cholesterol metabolism that impacts the brain, lungs, liver, spleen, and other organs. In January 2017 the FDA granted Fast Track designation to Trappsol® Cyclo™ for the treatment of NPC1. Initial patient enrollment in the U.S. Phase I study commenced in September 2017, and in May 2020 Cyclo announced Top Line data demonstrating Trappsol® Cyclo™ was well tolerated in this study. Cyclo is currently conducting a Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating Trappsol^® Cyclo™ in Pediatric and Adult Patients with Niemann-Pick Disease, Type C1. See Notes 11 and 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the Company’s investments in Cyclo.

As discussed in more detail below, on August 21, 2024, the Company entered into a merger agreement with Cyclo. In the event the merger is consummated, the Company intends to fund the TransportNPC phase III clinical trial, evaluating Trappsol® Cyclo™ in Niemann Pick C, to its interim analysis in the middle of 2025 and focus its efforts on Trappsol^® Cyclo™ as its lead clinical program. At that point, the Company will make a determination as to whether or not to file an NDA for Trappsol® Cyclo™.

LipoMedix is a clinical stage Israeli company focused on the development of a product candidate that holds the potential to be an innovative, safe, and effective cancer therapy based on liposome delivery. As of July 31, 2024, the Company’s ownership interest in LipoMedix was approximately 95%. LipoMedix has completed various clinical stages of Promitil® including Phase 1A (solid tumors) and 1B (as single agent and in combination with capecitabine and/or bevacizumab in colorectal cancer). Another phase 1B testing Promitil® as radiosensitizer is ongoing and near completion. A total of 149 patients have been treated with Promitil® as a single agent, or in combination with other anticancer drugs or radiotherapy, under the framework of a phase 1A and two 1B clinical studies and under named patient approval for compassionate use.

In 2019, the Company established Barer, a preclinical cancer metabolism research operation, to focus on developing a pipeline of novel therapeutic compounds, including compounds designed to regulate cancer metabolism with potentially broader application in other indications beyond cancer. Barer has been comprised of scientists and academic advisors that are experts in cancer metabolism, chemistry, and drug development. In addition to its own internal discovery efforts, Barer pursued collaborative research agreements and in-licensing opportunities with leading scientists from top academic institutions. Barer’s majority owned subsidiary, Farber Partners, LLC (“Farber”), was formed around one such agreement with Princeton University’s Office of Technology Licensing (“Princeton”) for technology from the laboratory of Professor Joshua Rabinowitz, in the Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, for an exclusive worldwide license to its SHMT (serine hydroxymethyltransferase) inhibitor program. In November 2022, the Company resolved to curtail its early-stage development efforts, including pre-clinical research at Barer Institute. Since then, the Company has sought partners for Farber programs and has entered into a license agreement for one of its technologies.

The Company owns a 37.5% equity interest in RP Finance LLC (“RP Finance”), which was, until March 13, 2024 (the date of the RP Finance Consolidation, as described below), accounted for under the equity method. RP Finance is an entity associated with members of the family of Howard Jonas (Executive Chairman, Chairman of the Board, and controlling stockholder of the Company) which holds 37.5% equity interest of RP Finance. RP Finance holds debt and equity investments in Cornerstone. Cornerstone received negative results of its Avenger 500 Phase 3 study for Devimistat in pancreatic cancer as well as a recommendation to stop its ARMADA 2000 Phase 3 study due to a determination that the trial would unlikely achieve its primary endpoint (the “Data Events”). Due to the Data Events, RP Finance fully impaired its then debt and equity investments in Cornerstone.

On March 13, 2024, Cornerstone consummated a restructuring of its outstanding debt and equity interests (the “Cornerstone Restructuring”). As a result of the Cornerstone Restructuring, Rafael became a 67% owner of the issued and outstanding common stock of Cornerstone (the “Cornerstone Acquisition”), and Cornerstone became a consolidated subsidiary of Rafael. The Cornerstone Acquisition is accounted for as an acquisition of a variable interest entity that is not a business in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The Company was determined to be the accounting acquirer for financial reporting purposes. See Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the transaction. In conjunction with the Cornerstone Restructuring and Cornerstone Acquisition, the Company reassessed its relationship with RP Finance, and as a result determined that RP Finance is still a variable interest entity and that the Company became the primary beneficiary of RP Finance as the Company now holds the ability to control repayment of the RP Finance Line of Credit which directly impacts RP Finance’s economic performance. Therefore, following the Cornerstone Restructuring and Cornerstone Acquisition, the Company consolidated RP Finance (the “RP Finance Consolidation”). See Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the Consolidation.

In May 2021, the Company formed Rafael Medical Devices, an orthopedic-focused medical device company developing instruments to advance minimally invasive surgeries. In August 2023, the Company raised $925,000 from third parties in exchange for 31.6% ownership of Rafael Medical Devices.

In April 2023, the Company first invested in Day Three, a company which empowers third-party manufacturers to reimagine their existing cannabis offerings enabling them to bring to market better, cleaner, more precise and predictable versions by utilizing Day Three’s pharmaceutical-grade technology and innovation like Unlokt™. In January 2024, the Company entered into a series of transactions with Day Three and certain shareholders, acquiring a controlling interest of Day Three, which is now a consolidated subsidiary of the Company (the “Day Three Acquisition”).

Financial information by segment is presented in Note 23 in the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report.

Our headquarters are located at 520 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102. The main telephone number at our headquarters is (212) 658-1450 and our corporate web site’s home page is www.rafaelholdings.com.

We make available free of charge our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to these reports, and all beneficial ownership reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed by directors, officers and beneficial owners of more than 10% of our equity through the investor relations page of our web site (https://rafaeholdings.irpass.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our web site also contains information not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On August 21, 2024, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among: Rafael; Tandem Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“First Merger Sub”); Tandem Therapeutics, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rafael (“Second Merger Sub” and together with First Merger Sub, the “Merger Subs”); and Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Cyclo”). The Merger Agreement requires approval of Cyclo’s stockholders and the issuance of the Company’s Class B Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share (“Rafael Class B Common Stock”) in the merger requires approval by Rafael’s stockholders. Upon such approvals and satisfaction or waiver of all other conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement and the effectiveness of a registration statement on Form S-4 to register the shares of the Company’s Class B Common Stock to be issued in the merger based on an exchange ratio (an illustration of which is set forth as Schedule 5 to the Merger Agreement) valuing Cyclo shares at $.95 per share and the Company at its cash value combined with the value of its marketable securities and certain other investments less current liabilities (of the Company on an unconsolidated basis), the merger will be consummated.

BUSINESS DESCRIPTION

We work to advance the pipeline development of our Portfolio Companies, including Cyclo Therapeutics, LipoMedix, Barer, Rafael Medical Devices, Cornerstone and Day Three Labs. We also further seek to expand our portfolio through opportunistic and strategic investments including therapeutics which address high unmet medical needs. Historically, the Company owned real estate assets. In 2020, the Company sold an office building located in Piscataway, New Jersey and in August 2022, the Company sold the 520 Property. Currently, the Company holds a portion a commercial building in Jerusalem, Israel as its remaining real estate asset.

Portfolio Companies

Overview

We are a company with interests in clinical and early-stage pharmaceutical companies including an investment in Cyclo Therapeutics, a clinical stage biotechnology company dedicated to developing Trappsol® Cyclo™, which is being evaluated in clinical trials for the potential treatment of Niemann-Pick Disease Type C1 (“NPC1”), a rare, fatal and progressive genetic disorder, a majority equity interest in LipoMedix, a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, Barer, a wholly-owned preclinical cancer metabolism research operation, and a majority interest in Cornerstone, a cancer metabolism-based therapeutics company. We also hold a majority interest in Rafael Medical Devices, an orthopedic-focused medical device company developing instruments to advance minimally invasive surgeries, and a majority interest in Day Three, a company which empowers third-party manufacturers to reimagine their existing cannabis offerings enabling them to bring to market better, cleaner, more precise and predictable versions by utilizing Day Three’s pharmaceutical-grade technology and innovation like Unlokt™. In November 2022, the Company resolved to curtail its early-stage development efforts, including pre-clinical research at Barer. The decision was taken to reduce spending as the Company focuses on exploring strategic opportunities. The Company’s primary focus is to expand our investment portfolio through opportunistic and strategic investments including therapeutics, which address high unmet medical needs.

Cyclo Therapeutics Inc.

Cyclo is a clinical -stage biotechnology company that develops cyclodextrin-based products for the potential treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. Cyclo filed a Type II Drug Master File with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in 2014 for its lead drug candidate, Trappsol® Cyclo™ (hydroxypropyl beta cyclodextrin) as a treatment for Niemann-Pick Disease, Type C1 (“NPC1”). NPC1 is a rare and fatal autosomal recessive genetic disease resulting in disrupted cholesterol metabolism that impacts the brain, lungs, liver, spleen, and other organs. In 2015, Cyclo launched an International Clinical Program for Trappsol® Cyclo™ as a potential treatment for NPC1. In 2016, Cyclo filed an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) with the FDA, which described its Phase I clinical plans for a randomized, double blind, parallel group study at a single clinical site in the U.S. The Phase I study evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of Trappsol® Cyclo™ along with markers of cholesterol metabolism and markers of NPC1 during a 12-week treatment period of intravenous administration of Trappsol® Cyclo™ every two weeks to participants 18 years of age and older. FDA authorized the IND to move forward in September 2016, and in January 2017 the FDA granted Fast Track designation to Trappsol® Cyclo™ for the potential treatment of NPC1. Initial patient enrollment in the U.S. Phase I study commenced in September 2017, and, in May 2020, Cyclo announced Top Line data showing Trappsol® Cyclo™ was well tolerated in this study.

Cyclo has also completed a Phase I/II clinical study authorized by European regulatory bodies with clinical trial centers in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and in Israel. The Phase I/II study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Trappsol® Cyclo™ through a range of clinical outcomes, including neurologic, respiratory, and measurements of cholesterol metabolism and markers of NPC1. Consistent with the 12-week phase 1 study (single US site), the European/Israel study administered Trappsol® Cyclo™ intravenously to NPC1 patients every two weeks in a double-blind, randomized trial, but differs in that the study period was for 48 weeks (24 doses). In March of 2021, Cyclo announced that 100% of patients who completed the trial (9 out of 12) improved or remained stable, and 89% met the efficacy outcome measure of improvement in at least two domains of the 17-domain NPC1 severity scale. Cyclo did not conduct a Phase II trial in the U.S. they relied on the data obtained from our Phase I/II trial abroad to support the commencement of our Phase III trial.

In February 2020, Cyclo had a face-to-face “Type C” meeting with the FDA with respect to the initiation of a pivotal Phase III clinical trial of Trappsol® Cyclo™ based on the clinical data obtained to date. At that meeting, Cyclo also discussed with the FDA submitting a New Drug Application (“NDA”) under Section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the treatment of NPC1 in pediatric and adult patients with Trappsol® Cyclo™. A similar request was submitted to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in February 2020, seeking scientific advice and protocol assistance from the EMA for proceeding with a Phase III clinical trial in Europe. In October 2020, Cyclo received a “Study May Proceed” notification from the FDA with respect to the proposed Phase III clinical trial, and in June of 2021, Cyclo commenced enrollment in TransportNPC, a pivotal Phase III study of Trappsol® Cyclo™ for the treatment of NPC1. In May 2024, Cyclo enrolled the last of the 104 patients in the Phase III study.

On May 17, 2010, the FDA designated Trappsol® Cyclo™ as an orphan drug for the treatment of NPC1, which, if Trappsol® Cyclo™ were to be approved for that orphan-designated indication, would provide Cyclo with the exclusive right to sell Trappsol® Cyclo™ for the treatment of NPC1 for seven years following FDA drug approval. In April 2015, Cyclo also obtained Orphan Drug Designation for Trappsol® Cyclo™ in Europe, which will provide Cyclo with 10 years of market exclusivity in Europe following regulatory approval, which period will be extended to 12 years upon acceptance by the EMA’s Pediatric Committee of Cyclo’s pediatric investigation plan (PIP) demonstrating that Trappsol® Cyclo™ addresses the pediatric population. On January 12, 2017, Cyclo received Fast Track Designation from the FDA, and on December 1, 2017, the FDA designated NPC1 a Rare Pediatric Disease.

Cyclo also continues to operate its legacy fine chemical business, consisting of the sale of cyclodextrins and related products to the pharmaceutical, nutritional, and other industries, primarily for use in diagnostics and specialty drugs.

Cyclo’s core business has transitioned to a biotechnology company primarily focused on the development of cyclodextrin-based biopharmaceuticals for the potential treatment of disease.

Global Phase III Clinical Study (TransportNPC)

Cyclo’s ongoing Phase III clinical trial (CTD-TCNPC-301), TransportNPC, is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled therapeutic study for up to 93 patients age three and older with confirmed diagnosis of NPC1. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of 2000 mg/kg doses of Trappsol^® Cyclo™ (hydroxypropyl betacyclodextrin) administered intravenously by slow infusion every two weeks as compared to placebo. Patients will be randomized to receive Trappsol^® Cyclo™ or placebo at a 2:1 ratio. The study duration is 96 weeks, with an unblinded interim analysis at 48 weeks. An open-label extension of up to 96 weeks follows the interventional study. Patients whose disease progression worsens by two levels in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity scale over 12 weeks, starting at week 36, may be moved to open label treatment. Efficacy will be measured at week 48 and week 96 by a composite score of major disease features. A sub-study is ongoing and being conducted outside of the U.S. for up to 12 patients age 0 - 3 years who may be asymptomatic. Outcomes for the sub-study are safety, clinical and caregiver impression of disease. In May 2024, Cyclo enrolled the last of the 104 patients in the Phase III study. Interim results from the study are expected during the first half of 2025.

European and Israeli Phase I/II Clinical Study

Cyclo completed a Phase I/II clinical study in Europe, the United Kingdom and Sweden. This study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Trappsol^® Cyclo™ through a range of clinical outcomes, including neurologic, and respiratory, in addition to measurements of cholesterol metabolism and markers of NPC1, in three dose groups (1500 mg/kg, 2000 mg/kg and 2500 mg/kg). The first patient was dosed in this study in July 2017, and in February 2020, Cyclo announced completion of enrollment of 12 patients in this study. The efficacy outcome measures and results from this study are as follows:

Efficacy Outcome Measure 1: At least a one-point reduction (or improvement) in two or more of the 17 domains measured under the Niemann-Pick Disease Type C (“NPC”) Clinical Severity Scale.

Results:

Efficacy Outcome Measure 2: Change from baseline in “Global Impression of Disease” at 48 weeks.

Results:

Additional Data:

US Phase I Clinical Study

In September 2016, the FDA authorized Cyclo to proceed with Cyclo’s Phase I clinical plans for a randomized, double blind, parallel group study in the U.S. The Phase I study evaluated the safety of Trappsol® Cyclo™ along with markers of cholesterol metabolism and markers of NPC1 during a 14-week treatment period of intravenous administration of Trappsol® Cyclo™ every two weeks to participants 18 years of age and older in two dose groups (1500 mg/kg and 2500 mg/kg). Enrollment in this study was completed in October 2019, and in May 2020 Cyclo announced Top Line data showing favorable tolerability profile for Trappsol® Cyclo™ in this study. Additional date from this study includes the following data:

LipoMedix

LipoMedix is a clinical stage Israeli company focused on the development of a product candidate that holds the potential to be an innovative, safe, and effective cancer therapy based on liposome delivery. As of July 31, 2024, the Company’s ownership interest in LipoMedix was approximately 95%. As needed, the Company provides funding to LipoMedix through intercompany promissory notes which are used to support research and development activities.

About Promitil®:

LipoMedix was established to advance the pharmaceutical and clinical development of a patented prodrug of mitomycin-C (MMC) and its efficient delivery in liposomes to cancer cells. This proprietary molecule, known as Promitil – Pegylated Liposomal Mitomycin-C Lipidic Prodrug (PL-MLP) – is designed to overcome the toxicity associated with the clinical use of mitomycin-C and turns it into a targeted, anticancer therapeutic that could potentially become the treatment of choice in a variety of cancers with high unmet need. The inventor and scientific founder, of LipoMedix is Alberto Gabizon, M.D., Ph.D., of the Hebrew University – Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Israel. He is the co-inventor and co-developer of Doxil® (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin), a successful and widely used anticancer product based on a similar drug development strategy. Prof. Gabizon is one of the few scientists intimately familiar with the successful development and commercialization process of liposomal drugs.

Promitil® is designed for the targeted delivery of MMC in a proprietary prodrug form. Promitil® confers tumor targeting advantage due to the enhanced permeability and retention effect (EPR) of liposomes. Once in the tumor cells, the prodrug is converted to the active drug (MMC) by thiolytic agents abundantly present in tumor tissues, and MMC induces DNA cross-linking leading to tumor cell death. In preclinical studies, Promitil® inhibited cancer cells growth in animal models (pancreatic, colorectal, stomach, breast, ovarian, melanoma, bladder), including multidrug resistant tumors, as monotherapy as well as in combination with radiotherapy and/or approved cancer drugs. In these studies, Promitil® was found to be more efficacious and less toxic than MMC by a 3-fold factor.

LipoMedix has completed 3 clinical studies with Promitil® including:

Over 120 patients were treated with Promitil® as a single agent or in combination with other anticancer drugs or radiotherapy in three clinical studies under a United States IND to assess the safety, PK profile, and preliminary efficacy, as well as 40 patients treated for compassionate use. Promitil® was given by intravenous infusion once every 3 or 4 weeks and appears to be well-tolerated at a dose up to 2 mg/kg. Except for mild myelosuppression, no other toxicities such as skin irritation, mouth ulcers, neuropathic pain, diarrhea, or hair loss were reported. Promitil® was stable in plasma with a half-life of approximately 20 hours (vs 40-50 minutes for naked MMC).

Next Steps for Clinical Development:

Homologous recombination (HR) is an evolutionarily conserved process for repairing DNA double-strand breaks with high fidelity, and the BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins play essential roles in this process. Patients harboring germline mutations in the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes have significantly increased life-time risk of developing breast, ovarian cancer, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. Tumors with BRCA mutations are susceptible to platinum-based chemotherapy and hypersensitive to agents that inhibit poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP). However, despite their initial anti-tumor activity, multiple resistance mechanisms have been described and the development of resistance limits the clinical utility of platinum based and PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapies. Overall, it remains a challenge in treating cancers associated with deleterious germline mutation in HR, such as BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 (Partner and Localizer of BRCA2).

Preclinical studies have shown that MMC was effective in killing of BRCA2 mutant tumors. Clinical efficacy of MMC has also been reported in heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1 mutations and patient with advanced, gemcitabine-resistant, pancreatic cancer who had PALB2 gene mutation. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continues to be one of the most lethal malignant neoplasms, with a 5-year survival rate of only 5%. Surgery is considered the sole potentially curative treatment; however, only 20% of patients diagnosed with PDAC are candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis and is frequently followed by recurrence and therapeutic resistance. Despite advances made in the development of systemic combination chemotherapies in the last two decades, progress in improving survival outcomes in patients with PDAC is stagnant.

Based on the reported preclinical and clinical efficacy of MMC in BRCA mutated tumors together with the demonstrated improved safety profile of Promitil® in humans, LipoMedix believes that Promitil® could offer an important therapeutic option for patients with pancreatic cancer. Thus, a clinical trial is ongoing to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and effects of Promitil® in cancer patients who have deleterious germline mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 across six hospitals in Israel.

Promitil®-based pipeline products:

In addition to Promitil®, LipoMedix has other Promitil®-based products with potentially important applications:

Farber

Farber, a majority owned subsidiary of Barer, was formed around an agreement with Princeton University’s Office of Technology Licensing for technology from the laboratory of Professor Joshua Rabinowitz, in the Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, for an exclusive worldwide license to its SHMT (serine hydroxymethyltransferase) inhibitor program. In November 2022, the Company resolved to curtail its early-stage development efforts, including pre-clinical research at Barer and Farber. Since then, the Company has sought partners for Farber programs and has entered into a license agreement for one of its technologies.

Cornerstone

We own our interest in Cornerstone through a 90%-owned non-operating subsidiary, Pharma Holdings, LLC (“Pharma Holdings”). Pharma Holdings owns 50% of CS Pharma, a non-operating entity that owns equity interests in Cornerstone, including 44.0 million shares of Cornerstone common stock. Accordingly, the Company holds an effective 90% interest in the Cornerstone interests held by Pharma Holdings, and an effective 45% interest in the Cornerstone interests held by CS Pharma.

In March of 2024, Cornerstone completed a comprehensive restructuring transaction including, the conversion of the debt under a line of credit agreement and the promissory note held by the Company, the conversion and modification of other Cornerstone debt obligations, the extension of the Cornerstone debt held by RP Finance, a reverse stock split, the conversion of all outstanding preferred stock of Cornerstone into common stock and the adoption of certain governance measures. Subsequent to the restructuring the Company owns 67% of Cornerstone.

Science and Preclinical:

Cornerstone’s lead development candidate is CPI-613® (devimistat), a stable analog of normally transient, acylated catalytic intermediates of lipoate. The CPI-613® intermediates are designed to disrupt mitochondrial function and thereby decrease the TCA cycle function; thus, CPI-613® (devimistat) misinforms these tumor systems, triggering mitochondrial stress and turning off the cancer cell TCA cycle. CPI-613® is designed to broadly affect tumor metabolism, including disrupting mitochondria and potentially intercalating in cancer cell membranes. The metabolic and mitochondrial stress have been found to trigger apoptotic and necrotic cell death pathways in tumor cells (Zachar et al., J Mol Med, 2011, 89:1137-48; Stuart et al., Cancer Metab. 2014, 2, 4: reviewed in Bingham et al., Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2014, 7:837-46 and Hammoudi et al., Chin J Cancer. 2011, ;30:508-25). These suggest that CPI-613® holds the potential to have anti-cancer activity. Combining CPI-613® with generalized metabolic stressors like chemotherapy holds the potential to result in the effective killing of even the most intractable tumors like pancreatic cancer. These effects were observed in Cornerstone’s Phase 1/2 trials to date (Alistar, et al., 2017; Pardee et al., 2018). CPI-613® has been found to be selectively accumulated in tumors in animal studies. CPI-613 is a lipoic acid analog with a fatty acid tail that may be able to utilize fatty acid transporters. Cancer cells have been shown to up-regulate fatty acid metabolism to support tumorigenesis.

There may be potential advantages of CPI-613® (devimistat) over alternative anti-metabolism and anti-cancer drugs. It is believed to be selectively taken up by cancer cells. As a result, CPI-613® (devimistat) holds the potential to be minimally toxic to healthy cells (i.e., safe, and well tolerated), potentially allowing extended treatment courses. Moreover, its toxicity profile may allow CPI-613® (devimistat) to be used in combination with other drugs and in older patients. These potential combination regimens include established standards of care for major malignancies, allowing potential treatment of surgically unresectable cancers. Additionally, this toxicity profile could support the administration of cocktails of anti-cancer drugs that may work synergistically with CPI-613®.

Several pre-clinical pharmacology and toxicology studies (including good laboratory practice toxicology (GLP Tox) studies) were conducted to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK), drug metabolism, safety, and anticancer activity of CPI-613® (devimistat). In in vitro and ex vivo studies, CPI-613® (devimistat) exhibited anticancer activities against tumor cell lines and cells. CPI-613® (devimistat) was taken up less in non-malignant cells. In vivo animal models bearing diverse tumor types were used to evaluate dose-response, PK, and metabolism of CPI-613® (devimistat). The drug was well tolerated in animal models studied. Prolonged survival was observed when compared to untreated controls in these animal models. GLP toxicology studies showed that any adverse events related to CPI-613® (devimistat) were considered transient and mostly observed during acute dosing; animals returned to normal post-dose (i.e., toxicities were reversible or recoverable). Toxicokinetic (TK) exposures of Cmax (peak concentration) and area under the curve (AUC) of CPI-613® (devimistat) from GLP Tox studies in rats and minipigs have shown safety margins expected to cover PK exposures of Cmax and AUC of CPI-613® (devimistat) in pancreatic cancer patients at doses studied.

Clinical Highlights:

More than 1024 patients have been dosed with CPI-613® (devimistat) to date in 24 ongoing or completed clinical trials.

Currently, there are two clinical trials enrolling participants in the following programs:

In March 2023, Cornerstone purchased all assets and rights of telaglenastat (CB-839), a glutaminase inhibitor, from Calithera Biosciences, Inc. Cornerstone is currently exploring the options to develop telaglenastat in different indications.

Rafael Medical Devices

Rafael Medical Devices is a medical device company currently concentrating on developing surgical and procedural devices designed to provide meaningful advantages to patients and healthcare providers in the orthopedic market. One of its current lead products is an orthopedic arthroscopy instrument for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Rafael Medical Devices has assembled an in-house team with expertise in engineering, device development quality control, and design discovery who have been part of teams that have created successful commercial medical devices in the past. It has begun to expand its expert network of experienced device creators, key opinion leaders, and is working to begin generating a commercial presence.

Orthopedics comprise a large addressable market. Rafael Medical Devices is seeking to assemble a portfolio of Class I, II and III devices to mitigate risk across a portfolio of devices with overlapping needs and markets. This strategy is designed to minimize supply chain requirements while maximizing market potential.

Day Three Labs

Day Three Labs is a technology company focused on creating solutions for increased bioavailability of other third-party manufacturers’ hydrophobic compounds, with a specific focus on compounds used as active ingredients in pharmaceutical and food supplement products. Day Three Labs maintains its manufacturing, sales and marketing activities in the United States, and research and development activities in Israel. Day Three Labs’ majority-owned subsidiary, Day Three Labs Manufacturing, is dedicated to the commercialization of technology for the cannabis and hemp industries and has developed technological solutions specifically engineered for increased bioavailability of cannabinoids, and Day Three Labs delivers those technologies as a processing service to other third-party manufacturers.

The Day Three Labs team, as well as that of its subsidiary Day Three Labs Manufacturing, has expertise in drug development, consumer product manufacturing and distribution, and product engineering, including pharmaceutical and food technology development. Day Three Labs as a group is positioning itself to target large addressable markets in the food supplement and pharmaceutical spaces, focusing its research and development on active ingredients with maximum addressable scope.

Research and Development

Spade Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Day Three Labs Manufacturing, is responsible for leading Research and Development of all Day Three Labs projects. Currently, Spade Therapeutics is investigating potential use of the technology to improve upon other third parties’ FDA approved cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals. Spade is also investigating potential uses of the technology for molecules of other, non-hydrophobic molecules.

OUR STRATEGY

We are a company with interests in clinical and early-stage Portfolio Companies, through our interests in Cyclo Therapeutics, our majority equity interest in LipoMedix, wholly-owned Barer, majority interests in Rafael Medical Devices and Day Three Labs, and majority interest in Cornerstone. Historically, our focus was on investing in and funding entities to discover and develop novel cancer therapies. More recently, we have expanded our focus to opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry not exclusively focused on cancer therapies, other healthcare-related investments and opportunities outside of biopharma.

The focus of our efforts is subject to change with market conditions, results of our internal development efforts, the availability of investment opportunities on acceptable terms, the investment and acquisition opportunities we may pursue, and developments at those targets.

Our goal within biopharma is to expand our portfolio and develop and bring to market therapeutics which address high unmet medical needs, opportunistic investments, acquisitions and in-licensing of assets.

We plan to continue to selectively invest in pre-clinical and clinical stage healthcare opportunities, including those in which we already own interests, when determined to be consistent with our goals, and move toward clinical stage programs as research and development results warrant, while being ready to exploit other opportunities that may arise.

Our internal and external investment decisions will be based on the progress and results of our development and pre-clinical activities and other operational developments, and the availability of targets for investment, acquisition or licensing.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE

Our operations, products, services, and potential future customers and those of our Portfolio Companies are subject to extensive government regulation by the FDA and other federal and state authorities in the United States, as well as comparable authorities in foreign jurisdictions. The global regulatory environment is increasingly stringent, unpredictable, and complex. There is a global trend toward increased regulatory and enforcement activity related to all medical products.

In the U.S., our product candidates and device candidates are regulated as either drugs or biological products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations, or as medical devices under the FFDCA and its implementing regulations, each as amended and enforced by the FDA. These laws govern the processes by which our product candidates and device candidates would be brought to market. The FDA has enacted extensive regulations that control all aspects of the development, design, performance, non-clinical and clinical research, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, installation, servicing, recordkeeping, premarket clearance or approval, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion, marketing and distribution, postmarket surveillance, and import and export of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. In addition, the FDA controls the access of products to market through processes designed to ensure that only products that are safe and effective for their intended use(s) and otherwise meet the applicable requirements of the FFDCA and/or PHSA before they are made available to the public.

Review And Approval Of Drugs In The United States

In the United States, the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the FFDCA, and its implementing regulations. The failure to comply with requirements under the FFDCA and other applicable laws at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of compliance letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

Each of Cyclo Therapeutics’, LipoMedix’s, Barer’s, and Cornerstone’s (collectively referred to as the “Pharmaceutical Companies”) current product candidates must be approved by the FDA through a New Drug Application, or NDA. An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

Before an applicant begins testing a compound with potential therapeutic value in humans, the drug candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, and the purity and stability of the drug substance, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory practices, or GLP, requirements. The 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. An IND is an exemption from the FFDCA that allows an unapproved drug to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug that is not the subject of an approved NDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements to use the study as support for an IND or subsequent application for regulatory approval. Such studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and informed consent from subjects. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND before a clinical trial can begin in the US. In addition, an IRB representing each study site participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at each site, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in four sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined under certain limited circumstances when authorized in advance by FDA:

Phase 1. The drug candidate is initially introduced into a small number of healthy human subjects or, in certain indications such as cancer, patients with the target disease or condition (e.g., cancer) and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness and to determine optimal dosage.

Phase 2. The drug candidate is administered to a limited number of patients in the target patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for a specific targeted disease, and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

Phase 3. These clinical trials are commonly referred to as “pivotal” studies, which denotes a study or studies that present the pivotal data (but not the only data) that the FDA or other relevant regulatory agency will use to determine whether or not to approve a drug candidate. The investigational drug is administered to an expanded number of patients in the target patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

Phase 4. Post-approval studies may be required to be conducted, or a sponsor may decide on its own to conduct them, in order to collect additional data after initial regulatory approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience and additional safety and/or efficacy data from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. Following review by FDA, data from Phase 4 studies can result in the suspension of marketing and/or the withdrawal of approval of the drug for safety or effectiveness reasons.

Progress reports detailing the results of all clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the investigator brochure.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing and packaging the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration in that packaging over its shelf life. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates, device candidates, or the use of our products.

If clinical trials are successful, the next step in the drug development process is the preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA, Biologics License Application, following payment of applicable user fees, if any, under PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. The NDA or BLA is the vehicle through which applicants formally propose that the FDA approve a new drug or biologic for marketing and sale in the United States for one or more indications. The results of product development, preclinical studies, and clinical trials, along with detailed descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling, and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA or BLA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. For example, products with orphan drug designation are not subject to user fees.

The FDA initially reviews all NDAs and BLAs submitted to identify if there are any deficiencies before it can officially accept the applications for in-depth review, also known as “filing” of the NDA or BLA. The FDA may request additional information before deciding whether to accept an NDA or BLA for filing, and the applicant generally must submit the requested information before FDA proceeds. Subject to any additional information requests by FDA, this is generally a 60-day filing period. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA.

After the NDA or BLA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA or BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity, and whether the product has appropriate labeling for its proposed intended use. There generally is a two-tiered system of review times – standard review and priority review – under the FDA’s regulations and PDUFA performance goals and procedures. A priority review designation means FDA’s current PDUFA goal is to review and take action on 90% of such applications within six months (compared to 10 months under standard review) in addition to the 60-day filing period. During the approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the drug or biologic following its approval. 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 a REMS is deemed to be required.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facilities at which the product is to be manufactured. These preapproval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA or BLA submission, including drug component manufacturing (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, labeling and packaging operations, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and all facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP.

The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides 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 about the approval of the drug.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA or BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for a specific indication or indications in accordance with approved labeling. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the application and may require the sponsor to undertake substantial additional testing or gather significant additional data and information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the application, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the complete response letter, or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA or BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. In its current PDUFA performance goals and procedures, the FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90% of such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included and the FDA’s classification of the resubmission. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to a specific disease(s) and dosage(s) or the indication(s) for use or other product labeling 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 post-approval clinical trials designed to further assess a product’s safety and/or effectiveness, and also may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

Fast track, breakthrough therapy, and priority review designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain product candidates for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and priority review designation. Receipt of such a designation does not necessarily mean that a product candidate will receive an expedited approval.

Accelerated approval pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted non-accelerated approval. If post-marketing clinical studies fail to verify the anticipated clinical benefit, FDA may withdraw approval.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any drug that receives FDA approval is subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, continued adherence to cGMP, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, by submitting supplemental NDAs, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications containing clinical data.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA review and approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers, packagers or distributors that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of manufacturing or distribution or other restrictions. Any regulatory approvals that the Pharmaceutical Companies may receive for their product candidates will require the regular submission of reports to regulatory authorities and 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. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indication(s) and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting false or misleading promotion and the promotion of off-label uses, which require that promotion is truthful, not misleading, fairly balanced and provides adequate directions for use, and that all claims are substantiated, and which also prohibit the promotion of products for unapproved or “off-label” uses and impose other restrictions on labeling, in accordance with FDA guidance on off-label dissemination of information and responding to unsolicited requests for information. A company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses or engaged in any other false or misleading promotion may be subject to significant liability and enforcement actions.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, and its implementing regulations, as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCA, and its implementing regulations, which together regulate, among other things, the distribution and tracking and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations, and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCA and its implementing regulations impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify, trace and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate or harmful drugs from the market.

Abbreviated new drug applications for generic drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FFDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications, and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data, and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the FDA’s prior determination of safety and effectiveness based upon the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD.

505(b)(2) NDAs

As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of products previously approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on FDA’s previous finding of safety and effectiveness of the RLD is scientifically and legally appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the previously approved RLD. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indication(s) for which the RLD has been approved, and/or for any new indication(s) for which approval is sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

Pediatric studies and exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug candidate for the proposed indication(s) in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is determined to be safe and effective. With enactment in 2012 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and any other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to waiver requests, deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in FDASIA. Unless and until FDA promulgates a regulation stating otherwise, the pediatric data requirements generally do not apply to products with orphan designation. However, in accordance with the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA, certain orphan designated cancer drugs are no longer exempt from having to conduct pediatric studies. FDARA requires that any original NDA or BLA submitted on or after August 18, 2020, for a new active ingredient, must contain studies of molecularly targeted pediatric cancers, unless a deferral or a waiver is granted, if the drug that is the subject of the application is intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and directed at a molecular target that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. A company must request orphan drug designation before submitting an NDA or BLA for the drug for the rare disease or condition. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use(s). Orphan drug designation does not shorten the PDUFA goal dates for the regulatory review and approval process, although it does convey certain advantages such as tax benefits and exemption from the PDUFA application fee. The first applicant to obtain approval of an orphan drug is eligible for seven years of exclusivity for a drug, or twelve years of exclusivity for a biologic, during which FDA may not approve the same drug for the same approved orphan indication unless the subsequent product is shown to be clinically superior or if the FDA withdraws exclusive approval or revokes orphan drug designation, or if the marketing application (NDA or BLA) for the orphan drug is withdrawn for any reason, or if the holder of the orphan exclusive approval fails to assure a sufficient quantity of the orphan drug.

Patent term restoration and extension

A patent claiming a new drug product or its method of use or its method of manufacturing may be eligible for a limited patent term extension, also known as patent term restoration, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extension is generally available only for drug products whose active ingredient has not previously been approved by the FDA. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the ultimate approval date, up to a maximum of five years. Patent term extension cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA upon PTO’s determination that the requirements for an extension have been met.

FDA approval and regulation of companion diagnostics

If safe and effective use of a therapeutic depends on a diagnostic, a medical device that is often an in vitro diagnostic or IVD, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of that diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves the therapeutic product. In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs, a candidate IVD companion diagnostic and its corresponding therapeutic should be co-developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance detailing general principles to guide co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. In April 2020, the FDA issued final guidance intended to facilitate class labeling on diagnostic tests for oncology therapeutic products, where scientifically appropriate.

Review And Approval Or Clearance Of Medical Devices In The United States

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device commercially distributed in the United States requires either FDA clearance of a Premarket Notification, or 510(k), FDA approval of a Premarket Approval, or PMA, application, or FDA marketing authorization in response to a De Novo request. Under the FFDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes – Class I, Class II or Class III – depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of manufacturer and regulatory control needed to ensure the device’s safety and effectiveness. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life sustaining, life supporting or some implantable devices, or devices that have a new intended use, or that use advanced technology which is not substantially equivalent to that of a legally marketed device, are generally placed into Class III.

While most Class I devices are exempt from the 510(k) premarket notification requirement, manufacturers of most Class II devices are required to submit to the FDA a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FFDCA requesting permission to commercially distribute the proposed device. The FDA’s permission to commercially distribute a device subject to a 510(k) premarket notification is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Class III devices require approval of a PMA evidencing safety and effectiveness of the device. Certain novel devices of low to moderate risk, for which the FDA can make a risk-based classification of the device into Class I or II, can receive marketing authorization in response to a De Novo request.

To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must pay the appropriate device user fee, unless eligible for a waiver or exemption, and submit a 510(k) premarket notification demonstrating to the FDA’s satisfaction that the proposed device is at least as safe and effective as, that is, “substantially equivalent” to, another legally marketed device that itself does not require PMA approval, or a predicate device. A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device) and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I, or a device that was found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. The sponsor must submit data and information that supports its substantial equivalency claims. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to twelve months, but often takes longer. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process usually takes from three to twelve months, but can last longer, and the De Novo classification generally can be comparable. FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence. In addition, the FDA collects user fees for certain medical device submissions and annual fees for medical device establishments.

Before the sponsor can market a proposed device that is the subject of a 510(k) premarket notification, the sponsor must receive an order from the FDA finding substantial equivalence and clearing the new device for commercial distribution in the US. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a lawfully marketed predicate device, it will grant 510(k) clearance to authorize the device for commercialization. If the FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent,” the device is automatically designated as a Class III device. If FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent,” the device is automatically designated as a Class III device. The device sponsor then must either fulfill the more rigorous PMA requirements, or the sponsor can submit a De Novo request seeking a risk-based classification determination for the device in accordance with the FDA’s De Novo classification process, which is a route to market for novel medical devices that are low to moderate risk and are not substantially equivalent to a predicate device. A sponsor also can submit a De Novo classification request directly, without first submitting a 510(k), if the sponsor determines that there is no legally marketed predicate device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, PMA approval or De Novo classification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine in the first instance whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k), a De Novo classification request or a PMA, but the FDA can review any such decision and disagree with a sponsor’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination not to seek a new 510(k) or other form of marketing authorization for a modification to a 510(k)-cleared product, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained or a De Novo classification is granted.

The PMA process is more demanding than either the 510(k) premarket notification process or the De Novo classification process and includes stringent clinical investigation and other requirements. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from preclinical studies and human clinical trials. All clinical investigations of devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s investigational device exemption, or IDE, regulations, which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of investigational devices, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. In addition, the study must be approved in advance by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE, and the IRB may impose additional requirements for the conduct of the clinical trial. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate authorization from FDA, but must still follow abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and adhering to labeling and recordkeeping requirements.

In addition to clinical and preclinical data, the PMA must contain a full description of the device and its components, a full description of the methods, facilities, and controls used for manufacturing, and proposed labeling. Following receipt of a PMA, the FDA determines whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If FDA accepts the PMA for review, FDA has 180 days under the FFDCA to complete its review of a PMA, although in practice, the FDA’s review often takes significantly longer, and can take up to several years. An advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. The FDA may or may not accept the panel’s recommendation. In addition, the FDA generally will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the applicant and/or its third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ facilities to ensure compliance with the FDA’s Quality System Regulation codified in 21 CFR Part 820, or QSR.

The FDA will approve the new device for commercial distribution if the FDA determines that the data and information in the PMA constitute valid scientific evidence and that there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s). The FDA may approve a PMA with post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution, and collection of long-term follow-up data from patients in the clinical study that supported PMA approval or requirements to conduct additional clinical studies post-approval. The FDA may condition PMA approval on some form of post-market surveillance when deemed necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and efficacy data for the device in a larger population or for a longer period of use. In such cases, the manufacturer might be required to follow certain patient groups for a number of years and to make periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including withdrawal of the approval. Certain changes to an approved device, such as changes in manufacturing facilities, methods, or quality control procedures, or changes in the design performance specifications, which affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, require submission of a PMA supplement, or in some cases a new PMA.

Both before and after a medical device is commercially released, the sponsor has ongoing responsibilities under the FFDCA and FDA regulations. The FDA reviews design and manufacturing practices, labeling and recordkeeping, and manufacturers’ required reports of adverse experiences and other information to identify potential problems with marketed medical devices. Sponsors are also subject to periodic inspection by the FDA for compliance with the FDA’s QSR, among other FDA requirements, such as requirements for advertising and promotion of medical devices. The sponsor’s manufacturing operations, and those of any third-party manufacturers, are required to comply with the QSR, which require manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers and suppliers, to follow stringent design, testing, control, maintenance of records and documentation, and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the design and manufacturing process both before and after receiving device clearance or approval. The QSR requires that each manufacturer establish a quality system by which the manufacturer monitors the manufacturing process and maintains records that show compliance with the FDA regulations and the manufacturer’s written specifications and procedures relating to each device. QSR compliance is necessary to receive and maintain FDA clearance or approval to market new and existing medical devices, and it is also necessary for distributing in the United States certain devices exempt from FDA clearance and approval requirements. The FDA conducts announced and unannounced periodic and ongoing inspections of medical device manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers and suppliers, to determine compliance with the QSR. If in connection with these inspections the FDA believes the manufacturer has failed to comply with applicable regulations and/or procedures, the FDA may issue inspectional observations on Form FDA-483, or Form 483, that would necessitate prompt corrective action. If the FDA inspectional observations are not addressed and/or corrective action is not taken in a timely manner and to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue a warning letter (which would similarly necessitate prompt corrective action) and/or proceed directly to other forms of enforcement action, including the imposition of operating restrictions, including a ceasing of operations, on one or more facilities, enjoining and restraining certain violations of applicable law pertaining to products, mandating recall of products, seizure of products, and assessing civil or criminal penalties against the manufacturer and its officers and employees. The FDA could also issue a corporate warning letter or a recidivist warning letter or negotiate the entry of a consent decree of permanent injunction with the manufacturer. The FDA may also recommend prosecution to the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ. Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may restrict a manufacturer from effectively manufacturing, marketing, and selling any medical device(s) and could have a material adverse effect on the manufacturer’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

After a device is cleared, receives marketing authorization, or is approved for marketing, numerous pervasive regulatory requirements continue to apply unless a device is explicitly exempt from them. These include, among other things:

Review And Approval Of Drugs In Europe And Other Foreign Jurisdictions

In addition to regulations in the US, a manufacturer of drugs is subject to a variety of regulations in foreign jurisdictions to the extent they choose to sell any drug products in those foreign countries. Even if a manufacturer obtains FDA approval of a product, it must still obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product in the European Union, or the EU, a manufacturer must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA, to the European Medicines Agency or EMA. For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing, and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, clinical trials are to be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. The time required to obtain approval by a foreign country may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval, and the requirements may differ significantly.

Review And Approval Of Medical Devices In Europe And Other Foreign Jurisdictions

In addition to regulations in the US, a manufacturer of medical devices is subject to a variety of regulations in foreign jurisdictions, which vary substantially from country to country, to the extent a manufacturer chooses to sell any medical devices in those foreign countries. In those countries, a manufacturer can be subject to supranational, national, regional, and local regulations affecting, among other things, the development, design, manufacturing, product standards, packaging, advertising, promotion, labeling, marketing, and postmarket surveillance of medical devices. In order to market a medical device in other countries, the sponsor must obtain regulatory approvals or certifications and comply with extensive safety and quality regulations enforced in those countries. We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of their former employers or other third parties. The time required to obtain approval or certification by a foreign country may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval or clearance, and the requirements may differ significantly.

The EU has adopted specific directives and regulations regulating the design, manufacture, clinical investigation, conformity assessment, labeling, and adverse event reporting for medical devices. Until May 25, 2021, medical devices were regulated by Council Directive 93/42/EEC, the EU Medical Devices Directive, or MDD, which had created a single set of medical device regulations for devices marketed in all EU member countries. Compliance with the MDD and certification to a quality system (e.g., ISO 13485 certification) enabled a manufacturer to place a CE mark on its products. To obtain authorization to affix the CE mark to a product, a recognized European Notified Body had to assess a manufacturer’s quality system and the product’s conformity to the requirements of the MDD.

The MDD has been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2017/745, the EU Medical Devices Regulation, or MDR, which imposes significant additional premarket and postmarket requirements on medical devices. The MDR entered into application on May 26, 2021. Under a corrigendum to the MDR finalized in December 2019, some low-risk medical devices being up-classified as a result of the MDR, including low-risk instruments, were potentially eligible to receive a transitional period to comply by May 2024 under certain conditions. The European Commission recently extended the implementation period to the end of 2027 for high-risk devices and to the end of 2028 for medium- and low-risk devices.

The MDR establishes a uniform, transparent, predictable, and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for medical devices and ensures a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. Unlike the MDD, the MDR is directly applicable in EU member states without the need for member states to implement the MDR into national law, with the aim of increasing harmonization across the EU. The MDR, among other things:

Devices lawfully placed on the market pursuant to the MDD prior to May 26, 2021, or thereafter if eligible under the MDR transition provisions, may generally continue to be made available on the market or put into service through the applicable extended transition period, provided that the requirements of the MDR’s transitional provisions are fulfilled. Among other requirements, depending on the class of device, the certificate in question must still be valid and not withdrawn, an MDR-compliant quality management system must be implemented and an application for a conformity assessment must be submitted by May 26, 2024, and an agreement for a conformity assessment must be executed with a Notified Body by September 26, 2024. However, even in these cases, manufacturers must comply with a number of new or reinforced requirements set forth in the MDR, in particular the obligations described below.

The MDR requires that before placing a device, other than a custom-made device, on the market, manufacturers (as well as other economic operators such as authorized representatives and importers) must register by submitting identification information to the electronic system (EUDAMED), unless they have already registered. The information to be submitted by manufacturers (and authorized representatives) also includes the name, address, and contact details of the person or persons responsible for regulatory compliance. The MDR also requires that, before placing a device, other than a custom-made device, on the market, manufacturers must assign a unique identifier to the device and provide it along with other core data to the unique device identifier, or UDI, database. These new requirements aim at ensuring better identification and traceability of medical devices. Each device – and, as applicable, each package – will have a UDI composed of two parts: a device identifier, or UDI-DI, specific to a device, and a production identifier, or UDI-PI, to identify the unit producing the device. Manufacturers are also responsible for entering the necessary data on EUDAMED, which includes the UDI database, and for keeping it up to date. The obligations for registration in EUDAMED and other mandatory uses of the system will start six months after the entire EUDAMED system (including all six modules) has been declared fully functional following an independent audit and an EU Commission notice to be published in the Official Journal and in accordance with the transitional provisions set out in the MDR. Until EUDAMED is fully functional, the corresponding provisions of the MDD continue to apply for the purpose of meeting the obligations laid down in the provisions regarding exchange of information, including, and in particular, information regarding registration of devices and economic operators.

All manufacturers placing medical devices into the market in the EU must comply with the EU medical device vigilance system. Under this system, serious incidents and Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, must be reported to the relevant authorities of the EU member states. Manufacturers are required to take FSCAs, which are defined as any corrective action for technical or medical reasons to prevent or reduce a risk of a serious incident associated with the use of a medical device that is made available on the market. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device.

The advertising and promotion of medical devices in the EU is subject to some general principles set forth in EU legislation. Under the MDR, only devices that are CE marked may be marketed and advertised in the EU in accordance with their intended purpose. Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, while not specific to the advertising of medical devices, also apply to the advertising of medical devices and contain general rules, for example, requiring that advertisements are evidenced, balanced, and not misleading. Specific requirements are defined at a national level. EU member states’ laws related to the advertising and promotion of medical devices, which vary between jurisdictions, may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of products to the general public and may impose limitations on promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Many EU member states have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medical devices, in particular with respect to healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities, and many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements (often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the US, on medical device manufacturers. Certain countries also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs.

The aforementioned EU requirements are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland.

Many other countries have specific requirements for classification, registration, and post-marketing surveillance that are independent of the countries discussed above. This landscape is constantly evolving and compliance with the regulatory requirements may require modifications to various systems, additional resources in certain functions, and updates to technical parameters, among other changes. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that are conducted post-approval. Rafael Medical Devices could be found in violation if it interprets the laws incorrectly or fails to keep pace with changes in laws and regulations. Rafael Medical Devices’ and our current product liability insurance may not continue to be available to them or us on acceptable terms, if at all. In the event of either of these occurrences, Rafael Medical Devices could be instructed to recall any products that it is marketing, cease manufacturing and/or distribution, and/or be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing, And Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Even if one of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates is approved, sales of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ products will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers, and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such products. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that the Pharmaceutical Companies or Rafael Medical Devices may successfully develop and for which they may obtain regulatory approval and may affect their overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Healthcare Law And Regulation

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of drug products and medical devices, other supranational, national, regional, federal, state, and local laws concerning healthcare fraud and abuse, including false claims and anti-kickback laws, healthcare professional payment transparency laws, and privacy laws restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. These laws have been subject to increased enforcement activities with respect to medical product manufacturers and distributors in recent years. Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, fines, imprisonment and, within the US, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Defense, and Veterans Administration health programs. Restrictions under applicable federal and state and analogous foreign healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

In addition, our operations in foreign countries are subject to the extraterritorial application of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA. Our global operations are also subject to foreign anti-corruption laws, such as the United Kingdom Bribery Act, among others. As part of our global compliance program, we seek to address anti-corruption risks proactively.

COMPETITION

We and the Portfolio Companies operate in highly competitive segments. We and the Portfolio Companies face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology and medical device enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Many of our and the Portfolio Companies’ competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than we and the Portfolio Companies possess. Large pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies have extensive experience in development, clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs and devices. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in research in direct competition with us and the Portfolio Companies. We and the Portfolio Companies also may compete with these organizations to recruit scientists and clinical development personnel. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Smaller and other clinical stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our and the Portfolio Companies’ competitors are pursuing the development and/or acquisition of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and over-the-counter (“OTC”) products that target the same diseases, conditions and unmet needs that we and the Portfolio Companies are targeting. If competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with therapeutic or cost advantages, our and the Portfolio Companies’ products can be subject to progressive price reductions or decreased volume of sales, or both. Most new products that we and the Portfolio Companies would introduce must compete with other products already on the market or products that are later developed by competitors. The principal methods of competition for our and the Portfolio Companies’ products include quality, efficacy, market acceptance, price, and marketing and promotional efforts, patient access programs and product insurance coverage and reimbursement.

We face competition from other entities, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and governmental institutions that are working on supporting orphan drug designations and clinical trials for the neurological manifestations of NPC. Some of these entities are well-funded, with more financial, technical and personnel resources than we have, and have more experience than we do in designing and implementing clinical trials. Two of our competitors were granted FDA approval of combination therapies for NPC on September 20, 2024 and September 24, 2024, and are each expected to be in the market in the second quarter of 2025. If we are unable to compete effectively against our current or future competitors, sales of our Trappsol® Cyclo™ product may not grow and our financial condition may suffer.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Licenses

LipoMedix maintains an exclusive license agreement with Yissum Research and Development Company, the technology transfer arm of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem granting LipoMedix the exclusive right to make, use and sell products covered under specified patents relating to the mitomycin lipophilic prodrug and its liposomal formulation (Promitil^®) with the right to grant sublicenses. LipoMedix also maintains an exclusive license agreement with Shaare Zedek Scientific Company, the technology transfer arm of Shaare Zedek Medical Center (“SZMC”), granting LipoMedix the exclusive right to license any new intellectual property developed at SZMC relating to the mitomycin lipophilic prodrug and its liposomal formulation (Promitil^®) with the right to grant sublicenses.

Barer’s subsidiary, Farber Partners, LLC (“Farber”), has formed agreements with Princeton University’s Office of Technology Licensing for technology from the laboratory of Professor Joshua Rabinowitz, in the Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, for an exclusive worldwide license to its SHMT (serine hydroxymethyltransferase) inhibitor program and use of Methanol and prodrugs in therapy.

Cornerstone maintains an exclusive license agreement with the Research Foundation of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, or RF, granting Cornerstone the exclusive right to make, use and sell products covered under specified technology relating to lipoic acid derivatives with the right to grant sublicenses. This license agreement was amended in 2004, 2007 and 2017. Cornerstone maintains a low single-digit royalty agreement with Altira Capital and Consulting, LLC (“Altira”), pursuant to which Cornerstone is granted sole ownership of certain patents directed to lipoic acid derivatives and other technology. Rafael possesses a 2/3 ownership interest in Altira.

Patents

The designation of Trappsol^® Cyclo™ as an orphan drug for the treatment of NPC1 by the FDA and European regulators would provide Cyclo with seven years, and 10 to 12 years, of market exclusivity, respectively, if it were to receive regulatory approval for its designated orphan indication. Cyclo also protected its Trappsol^® and Aquaplex^® trademarks by registering them with the USPTO. In July 2024, Cyclo received a notice of decision from the European Patent Office to grant a patent application regarding the methods to treat Alzheimer’s Disease, with an effective date of August 21, 2024.

LipoMedix owns or in-licenses several families of U.S. patents. Additional patent applications may be filed as studies continue. Patents that LipoMedix has obtained and patents that may issue in the future based on LipoMedix’s currently pending patent applications for its platform technologies are scheduled to expire in years 2032 through 2040. These dates do not include potential patent term extensions.

Four patent applications covering the use of Promitil®, in combination with other chemotherapies and with radiotherapy, targeting of Promitil^® with a folate ligand, and a reformulation of Promitil^® with co-encapsulated mitomycin prodrug and doxorubicin have been approved by the USPTO or EPO in 2018-2020. The patent portfolio is currently comprised of four granted families of patents and two applications under review.

Barer has filed patents for its novel inventions, and has entered into licensing agreements for other intellectual property. Patent applications have been filed in the name of Farber Partners, LLC (Barer’s subsidiary) in the areas of T-cell nutrients to enhance checkpoint inhibition and one-carbon metabolism, and serine hydroxymethyltransferase (SHMT) inhibitors for therapies directed to treatment of cancer, autoimmune disease and fibrotic disease. In the area of T-cell nutrients, a Patent Cooperation Treaty Application (PCT) was filed on July 15, 2022, claiming priority to two US provisional applications that were filed in July and December of 2021. The PCT application entered the US national phase and the European regional phase in January of 2024. In the area of SHMT inhibitors, a US provisional application was filed on May 21, 2024. Pursuant to a Collaboration and Assignment Agreement between Farber and Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd. (“Ludwig”), Farber assigned its rights to these patents to Ludwig.

Cornerstone patents its technology, inventions, and improvements that it considers important to the development of its business. A patent gives the patent holder the right to exclude any unauthorized use of the subject matter of the patent in those jurisdictions in which a patent is granted. Cornerstone owns or in-licenses dozens of U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications with expiration dates ranging from 2028 through 2042, not including potential patent term extensions. Cornerstone also has obtained U.S. orphan drug designation for CPI-613® (devimistat) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, AML, MDS, Burkitt’s Lymphoma, Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma (PTCL), soft tissue sarcoma, and biliary cancer.

Cornerstone maintains U.S. and international trademarks covering its lead development compounds (CPI-613® (devimistat) and Telaglenastat (CB-839)). U.S. and international trademarks are also maintained for potential brand names of devimistat that could be used if it were to receive regulatory approval permitting commercialization.

Rafael Medical Devices patents its technology, inventions, and improvements that it considers important to the development of its business and seeks to expand its intellectual property portfolio. As of September 16, 2023, Rafael Medical Devices had filed the following patent application related to its devices with the USPTO and PCT: Patent application entitled, Compression Anchor Systems, Devices, Instruments, Implants and Methods of Assembly and Use; and patent application entitled Videoscopic Arthroscopic Instruments, Devices, and Systems and Methods of Use and Assembly.

Day Three Labs Manufacturing, a majority-owned subsidiary of Day Three Labs, owns several families of US and international patents and patent applications related the service it provides to other third-party manufacturers to increase the bioavailability of cannabinoids. Day Three Labs Manufacturing has also filed for trademark protection over the use of the term UNLOKT, which it uses as the brand name for the other third-party manufacturers’ cannabinoids processed using its technology.

Additional patent applications may be filed as development progresses across the Portfolio Companies as deemed to be in its best interest.

MANUFACTURING

The Portfolio Companies do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities or fill-and-finish facilities. The Pharmaceutical Companies currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of their product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture of any products that they may commercialize. The Pharmaceutical Companies obtain supplies from these established contract manufacturers on a purchase-order basis and do not have long-term supply arrangements in place. The Pharmaceutical Companies may choose to focus the Pharmaceutical Companies’ efforts and resources on a potential product candidate that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful. The Pharmaceutical Companies do not currently have arrangements in place for a redundant supply of bulk drug substance or drug product, however, they may seek to add that capability if they move toward commercialization of specific candidates. The Pharmaceutical Companies may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval of any product candidate for which they have obtained ODD for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. For all of the product candidates, the Pharmaceutical Companies intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide the active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulation and fill-and-finish.

Cyclo is developing its lead product candidate, Trappsol^® Cyclo™, for the proposed treatment of Niemann-Pick Disease, Type C1. The company owns all manufacturing and commercial rights to the product and manufactures using a validated, commercial-scale process using a team of contract manufacturing service providers.

LipoMedix’s Promitil^® and other pipeline candidates are based on an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) referred to as MLP (abbreviation of mitomycin-C lipid-based prodrug) that is formulated into customized nanoparticles. These nanoparticles consist of lipids and a polyethylene-glycol (PEG) polymer and are known as pegylated liposomes. LipoMedix obtains bulk drug substance and drug product supplies from established contract manufacturers on a purchase order basis and does not have long-term supply arrangements in place. LipoMedix does not currently have arrangements in place for commercial supply or redundant supply for bulk drug substance or drug product.

Rafael Medical Devices optimizes supply chains and manufacturing on a device per device basis focusing on quality, time, and cost. At present, Rafael Medical Devices does not own or operate manufacturing facilities. Rafael Medical Devices management has relationships with top tier manufacturers that it leverages on an as-needed basis. Rafael Medical Devices generally contracts with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes.

Day Three Labs Manufacturing, a majority-owned subsidiary of Day Three, provides a processing service to other third-party manufacturers for which it processes cannabinoids together with proteins using commercially available filtration equipment. Proteins used by Day Three Labs Manufacturing are obtained from established commercial manufacturers. Cannabinoids are acquired, owned, managed and held by the other third-party manufacturers for whom Day Three Labs Manufacturing provides processing services, and those manufacturers exclusively manage and control the process of obtaining and taking custody of the material from state-licensed growers and extractors as well as controlling the overall process of manufacturing, marketing, and distributing their final products. All processing services take place at other third-party manufacturers’ state-licensed cannabis facilities, and Day Three Labs Manufacturing does not manage or take ownership, custody or control of the cannabinoids being processed, but rather provides their technology to other third-party manufacturers as a processing service.

Real Estate

Our current commercial real estate holdings consist of a portion of a building in Israel. Prior to its sale in August 2022, we also owned the 520 Property.

On August 22, 2022, the Company completed the sale of the 520 Property for a purchase price of $49.4 million.

The 520 Property was encumbered by a mortgage securing a $15 million loan which was paid off in this transaction. After repaying the loan, and paying commissions, taxes, and other costs, the Company received a net amount of approximately $33 million at closing.

The 520 Property serves as the headquarters of the Company and affiliated entities, IDT Corporation (“IDT”), and Genie Energy, Ltd. (“Genie”), who occupy the second through fourth floors.

Our holding in Israel is a condominium portion of an office building built in 2004 located in the Har Hotzvim section of Jerusalem, Israel. The condominium is one floor comprising approximately 12,400 gross square feet including 24 indoor parking spaces. Har Hotzvim is a high-tech industrial park located in northwest Jerusalem. It is the city’s main zone for science-based and technology companies, among them Intel, Teva and Mobileye. As of July 31, 2024, the space is fully leased to two tenants; one of which is an IDT subsidiary.

Depreciation expense of property, plant and equipment was $137 thousand and $78 thousand as of July 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. Depreciation expense for the year ended July 31, 2024 includes depreciation of acquired assets from the Day Three Acquisition and Cornerstone Acquisition.

COMPETITION

With respect to our real estate business, we compete for commercial (office and retail) tenants in Jerusalem, Israel. The commercial real estate market is highly competitive. Numerous commercial properties compete with us for tenants based on location, rental rates, tenant allowances, operating expenses and the quality and design of the property. Other factors tenants consider are; quality and breadth of tenant services provided, onsite amenities and reputation of the owner and property manager.

OUR STRATEGY

Our strategy related to our real estate business is to continue to operate and maximize the value of our real estate holding in Israel.

EMPLOYEES

As of November 5, 2024, Rafael Holdings and its subsidiaries had 28 full-time and 3 part-time employees.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

RISK FACTORS

Our business, operating results or financial condition could be materially adversely affected by any of the following risks associated with any one of our businesses, as well as the other risks highlighted elsewhere in this document. The trading price of our common stock could decline due to any of these risks. Note that references to “our”, “us”, “we”, “the Company”, etc. used in each risk factor below refers to the business about which such risk factor is provided.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Needs

We have limited resources and could find it difficult to raise additional capital.

We may need to raise additional capital for operations and in order for stockholders to realize increased value on our securities. In the event the merger is consummated with Cyclo (the “Merger”) and if the current Phase III trial for Trappsol^® Cyclo™ is successful, we may need to raise capital for the manufacturing, distribution and commercialization of Trappsol^® Cyclo™. Given the current global economy and other factors, if we need to raise additional capital, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the necessary funding on commercially reasonable terms in a timely fashion or at all. Failure to receive the funding could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, and financial condition.

Our limited operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business and prospects and may increase your investment risk.

We have only a limited operating history upon which our business and prospects can be evaluated. We expect to encounter risks and difficulties frequently encountered by early-stage companies in the industries in which we operate.

We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale medicine, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Typically, it takes about ten to fifteen years to develop one new medicine from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by clinical stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields. We will also need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. If we do not adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition, our business will suffer, our future revenue potential may be impacted, and our ability to pursue our growth strategy and attain profitability could be compromised.

We hold significant cash, cash equivalents, and investments that are subject to various market risks.

As of July 31, 2024, we held approximately $2.7 million in cash and cash equivalents, approximately $63.3 million in short-term available-for-sale securities, $0.4 million in third-party and related party receivables, approximately $0.5 million in interests receivable, and $2.5 million in investment in hedge funds. Investments in hedge funds carry a degree of risk, as there can be no assurance that we will be able to redeem any hedge fund investments at any time or that our investment managers will be able to accurately predict the course of price movements of securities and other instruments and, in general, the securities markets have in recent years been characterized by great volatility and unpredictability. Our passive interests in other entities are not currently liquid, and we cannot assure that we will be able to liquidate them when we desire, or ever. As a result of these different market risks, our holdings of cash, cash equivalents, and investments could be materially and adversely affected.

We may not be able to consummate any investment, business combination or other transaction.

While we are actively seeking corporate development opportunities, we may not be able to find any suitable target businesses and consummate an investment, business combination or other transaction. Our ability to complete any such transactions may be negatively impacted by general market conditions, volatility in the debt and equity markets, decreased market liquidity, and third-party financing being unavailable on terms acceptable to us or at all.

Risks Related to our Pharmaceuticals Business

Our future success may depend significantly on results of Cyclo Therapeutics’ Phase III trial for Trappsol^® Cyclo™. If Cyclo is unable to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval for or commercialize its product candidates or experiences significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed. If either company is unable to gain regulatory approval or commercialize its product candidates or experiences significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We have invested a significant amount of capital in Cyclo. Our dependence on the success of Trappsol® Cyclo™ and the need for additional capital will increase if the merger is consummated and the Phase III trial for Trappsol^® Cyclo™ is successful.

The success of Trappsol® Cyclo™ is beyond our and Cyclo’s control, and the drug development and regulatory approval processes could cause significant delay or prevent Cyclo from obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing Trappsol® Cyclo™ or any other product candidates. If Cyclo is unable to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize its product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business. If either Cornerstone or Cyclo is unable to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize its product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

The Pharmaceutical Companies may not be successful in their efforts to identify or discover potential product candidates.

Our business strategy includes elements for our subsidiaries and entities in which we invest to identify, create and test compounds, and to advance clinical testing of those and other compounds. A significant portion of the research that the Pharmaceutical Companies are conducting involves new compounds and drug discovery methods and suitable drug delivery systems, including the Pharmaceutical Companies’ proprietary technology. The drug discovery that the Pharmaceutical Companies are conducting using the Pharmaceutical Companies’ proprietary technology may not be successful in identifying compounds that are useful in treating cancer or other ailments. The Pharmaceutical Companies’ research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. The Pharmaceutical Companies may choose to focus the Pharmaceutical Companies’ efforts and resources on a potential product candidate that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful.

If the Pharmaceutical Companies are unable to identify suitable compounds for preclinical and clinical development, and/or are unable to successfully secure regulatory approval for any such compounds, the Pharmaceutical Companies will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to the Pharmaceutical Companies’ financial position and adversely impact the Pharmaceutical Companies’ valuation and our business.

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

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

Preclinical and clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. Our and the Pharmaceutical Companies’ preclinical and clinical programs may experience delays or may never advance, which would adversely affect the ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

In order to obtain FDA approval to market a new drug, the product sponsor must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the new drug in humans to the satisfaction of the FDA. To meet these requirements, the Pharmaceutical Companies will have to conduct extensive studies, including pre-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. Clinical testing is very expensive, time-consuming, and subject to uncertainty.

Before the Pharmaceutical Companies can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, they must complete extensive nonclinical and preclinical studies that support their planned and future INDs in the United States. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ nonclinical and preclinical studies and cannot predict if the FDA will allow their proposed clinical programs to proceed or if the outcome of their nonclinical and preclinical studies will ultimately support further development of their programs. We also cannot be sure that the Pharmaceutical Companies will be able to submit INDs or similar applications with respect to their product candidates on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of IND or similar applications will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

Conducting nonclinical and preclinical testing and clinical trials represents a lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity, and novelty of the program, and often can be several years or more per development program. Delays associated with programs for which the Pharmaceutical Companies are conducting nonclinical and preclinical studies may cause them to incur additional operating expenses. The commencement and rate of completion of nonclinical and preclinical studies and clinical trials for a product candidate may be delayed by many factors, including, for example:

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent variants may increase the likelihood that the Pharmaceutical Companies encounter difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing any planned and ongoing nonclinical and preclinical studies and clinical trials. Any inability by the Pharmaceutical Companies to successfully initiate or complete nonclinical and preclinical studies or clinical trials could result in additional costs or impair our ability to generate revenue from future product sales of any product candidates that were thought to be on track to receive regulatory approval. In addition, if the Pharmaceutical Companies make manufacturing or formulation changes to their product candidates that already have undergone or are undergoing clinical evaluation, they may be required to or may elect to conduct additional studies to bridge modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which any marketed products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates and may seriously harm our business.

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as the Pharmaceutical Companies may do for their product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of clinical trials. These risks include the failure of patients enrolled in clinical trials in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocols as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, the utilization of alternative standards of care in foreign countries and the failure to conduct foreign clinical trials according to standards of care that FDA considers comparable to the standards of care in the US, failure of the Pharmaceutical Companies to persuade the FDA as to the scientific robustness and clinical acceptability of the data from any such foreign clinical trials, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political, economic, and public health risks relevant to such foreign countries. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocols as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, failure to conduct foreign clinical trials according to standards of care in foreign countries that FDA considers comparable to the standards of care in the US, failure of the Pharmaceutical Companies to persuade the FDA as to the scientific robustness and clinical acceptability of the data from any such foreign clinical trials, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries.

Moreover, principal investigators for the Pharmaceutical Companies’ clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to the Pharmaceutical Companies from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, the Pharmaceutical Companies may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or state authorities or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Under certain circumstances, the Pharmaceutical Companies may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or state authorities or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between the Pharmaceutical Companies and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected conduct of the study or interpretation of the study results. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site, and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of one or more product candidates.

Delays in the completion of any preclinical studies or clinical trials of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates will increase our costs, slow down product candidate development and approval processes, and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenue from any product candidate that might receive regulatory approval. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. Any delays to the Pharmaceutical Companies’ preclinical studies or clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which they may have the exclusive right to commercialize such product candidates, and their competitors may be able to bring products to market before they do, and the commercial viability of any product candidates could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, and prospects significantly.

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

The Pharmaceutical Companies or their collaborators may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates if the Pharmaceutical Companies or such collaborators are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or analogous regulatory authorities outside the United States.

Enrollment may be particularly challenging for some of the orphan diseases the Pharmaceutical Companies target in the Pharmaceutical Companies’ programs. In addition, there may be limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical studies. In addition to the rarity of some diseases, the eligibility (inclusion and exclusion) criteria of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ clinical studies will further limit the pool of available study participants as they may require that patients have specific characteristics that they can measure or to assure their disease is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study. In addition to the rarity of some diseases, the eligibility criteria of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ clinical studies will further limit the pool of available study participants as they may require that patients have specific characteristics that they can measure or to assure their disease is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study. In addition, some of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that are in development to treat the same indications as the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for the Pharmaceutical Companies’ clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ competitors’ product candidates and therefore be ineligible or otherwise unwilling to enroll in the Pharmaceutical Companies’ clinical trials.

Patient enrollment is also affected by other factors including:

These factors may make it difficult for the Pharmaceutical Companies to enroll enough patients to complete their clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner. The Pharmaceutical Companies’ inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for their clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require them to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in clinical trials may result in increased development costs for the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates and jeopardize their ability to obtain regulatory approval. Furthermore, even if the Pharmaceutical Companies are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for their clinical trials, they may have difficulty maintaining participation in their clinical trials through the treatment and any follow-up periods.

The Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates may cause significant adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that may result in a safety profile that could preclude further development, prevent regulatory approval, prevent market acceptance, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

If the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in preclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs, the Pharmaceutical Companies may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Treatment-related side effects could also 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 prevent the Pharmaceutical Companies from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, and prospects significantly.

In addition, many compounds that initially showed promise in early-stage testing for treating cancer or other indications have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. Further, we expect that certain product candidates will be used in patients that have weakened immune systems, which may exacerbate any potential side effects associated with their use. Patients treated with oncology product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and/or chemotherapy treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to the product candidate but may still impact the risk-benefit profile of the product candidate and the success of clinical trials. Patients treated with oncology product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to the product candidate but may still impact the success of clinical trials. The inclusion of critically ill patients in clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses. It may be very challenging, or even impossible, for the Pharmaceutical Companies to demonstrate that any such deaths or other adverse events are traceable to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses, in which case the FDA or analogous regulatory authorities may attribute any such deaths or other adverse events to the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidate being studied in the clinical trial.

If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ current or future clinical trials, the Pharmaceutical Companies may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trials, patients may drop out of such trials, or they may be required to abandon the trials or their development efforts of a product candidate altogether. The Pharmaceutical Companies, the FDA, other comparable regulatory authorities or an IRB may suspend or halt clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to inadequate clinical benefit and/or unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. The Pharmaceutical Companies, the FDA, other comparable regulatory authorities or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to inadequate clinical benefit and/or unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects.

Further, if any of the Pharmaceutical Companies’ product candidates obtains regulatory approval, toxicities associated with such product candidates previously not seen during clinical testing may also develop after such approval and lead to a number of potentially significant negative consequences, including, but not limited to: