​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

​

​

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024

​

or

​

​

For the Transition Period from ____ to _____.

​

Commission File No. 001-35366

​

FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

​

​

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (781) 652-4500

​

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

​

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes     ⌧ No     ☐

​

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

​

​

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

​

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

​

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

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

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

​

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $30,782,670.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not descriptions of historical facts are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “anticipates,” “believes,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “should,” or “will” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial condition and stock price. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated include those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” including, in particular, risks relating to:

We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations or any changes in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as may be required by law, and we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The information contained herein is intended to be reviewed in its totality, and any stipulations, conditions or provisos that apply to a given piece of information in one part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be read as applying mutatis mutandis to every other instance of such information appearing herein.

​

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

​

Our business is subject to risks of which you should be aware before making an investment decision. The risks described below are a summary of the principal risks associated with an investment in us and are not the only risks we face. You should carefully consider these risk factors, the risk factors described in Item 1A, and the other reports and documents that we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). As used below and throughout this filing (including in the risk factors described in Item 1A), the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress Biotech, Inc. individually, to one or more of its subsidiaries and/or partner companies, or to all such entities as a group, as dictated by context.

​

Risks Inherent in Drug Development

​

​

Risks Pertaining to the Need for and Impact of Existing and Additional Financing Activities

​

​

Risks Pertaining to Our Existing Revenue Stream from Journey Medical Corporation (“Journey”)

​

​

Risks Pertaining to our Business Strategy, Structure and Organization

​

​

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

​

​

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes with Licensors Thereof

​

​

Risks Pertaining to Generic Competition and Paragraph IV Litigation

​

​

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates, if Approved

​

​

Risks Pertaining to Legislation and Regulation Affecting the Biopharmaceutical and Other Industries

​

​

General and Other Risks

​

​

​

PART I

Item 1.    Business.

Overview

Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress” or the “Company”) is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring and advancing assets to enhance long-term value for shareholders through product revenue, equity holding and dividend and royalty revenue streams. Fortress works in concert with our extensive network of key opinion leaders to identify and evaluate promising products and product candidates for potential acquisition. We have executed arrangements in partnership with some of the world’s foremost universities, research institutes and pharmaceutical companies, including City of Hope National Medical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, AstraZeneca plc, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.

Following the exclusive license or other acquisition of the intellectual property underpinning a product or product candidate, Fortress leverages its business, scientific, regulatory, legal and financial expertise to help its subsidiaries and partner companies achieve their goals. Partner and subsidiary companies then assess a broad range of strategic arrangements to accelerate and provide additional funding to support research and development, including joint ventures, partnerships, out-licensings, sales transactions, and public and private financings. To date, four partner companies are publicly-traded, and three subsidiaries have consummated strategic partnerships with industry leaders AstraZeneca plc as successor-in-interest to Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“AstraZeneca”) and Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sentynl”).

Our subsidiary and partner companies that are pursuing development and/or commercialization of biopharmaceutical products and product candidates are: Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CKPT, “Checkpoint”), Journey Medical Corporation (Nasdaq: DERM, “Journey” or “JMC”), Mustang Bio, Inc. (Nasdaq: MBIO, “Mustang”), Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (OTC: ATXI, “Avenue”), Baergic Bio, Inc. (“Baergic,” a subsidiary of Avenue), Cellvation, Inc. (“Cellvation”), Cyprium Therapeutics, Inc. (“Cyprium”), Helocyte, Inc. (“Helocyte”), Oncogenuity, Inc. (“Oncogenuity”) and Urica Therapeutics, Inc. (“Urica”).

As used throughout this filing, the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress individually, to one or more of its subsidiaries and/or partner companies, or to all such entities as a group, as dictated by context. Generally, “subsidiary” refers to a private Fortress subsidiary, “partner company” refers to a public Fortress subsidiary, and “partner” refers to an entity with whom one of the foregoing parties has a significant business relationship, such as an exclusive license or an ongoing product-related payment obligation. The context in which any such term is used throughout this document, however, may dictate a different construal from the foregoing.

Recent Developments

Checkpoint and UNLOXCYT (cosibelimab-ipdl)

In December 2024, we announced that Checkpoint had received approval for UNLOXCYT, which is the first and only programmed death-ligand 1 (“PD-L1”) blocking antibody to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) marketing approval for the treatment of adults with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (“cSCC”) or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation.

In March 2025, we announced that Checkpoint entered into an agreement to be acquired by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Sun Pharma”) for $4.10 per share in cash plus a contingent value right of up to $0.70 per share upon the achievement of EU approval. The closing of the transaction is subject to various conditions including the approval by requisite majorities of holders of Checkpoint’s shares at a meeting of Checkpoint’s stockholders. We expect the transaction to close in the second quarter of 2025, although there can be no assurance that the transaction closes in a timely manner, or at all.

As of the announcement date, Fortress owned approximately 6.9 million shares of Checkpoint (including Class A Common Stock on an as-converted basis to Common Stock). Fortress also entered into a royalty agreement with Checkpoint and Sun Pharma pursuant to which Fortress is eligible to receive a royalty of 2.5% on worldwide net sales of UNLOXCYT. Due to uncertainties as to the timing of the completion of the acquisition, uncertainties as to whether Checkpoint’s

stockholders will vote to approve the transaction, the possibility that competing offers will be made and the possibility that various closing conditions for the transaction may not be satisfied or waived, including that a governmental entity may prohibit, delay or refuse to grant approval for the consummation of the transaction (or only grant approval subject to adverse conditions or limitations), Fortress may not realize the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction in the time frame expected, or at all.

Journey and EMROSI (Minocycline Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsules, 40mg)

In November 2024, we announced that partner company Journey received approval of Emrosi (also referred to as DFD-29), a 40mg minocycline hydrochloride extended release capsule for oral use indicated to treat inflammatory lesions (papules and pustules) of rosacea in adults.

Cyprium and CUTX-101 (copper histidinate)

In January 2025, we announced that the FDA had accepted the NDA for CUTX-101, a copper histidinate injection, for priority review for the treatment of Menkes disease. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) target action date is September 30, 2025 and the candidate has been granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation by the FDA for the treatment of Menkes disease, Fast Track Designation for classic Menkes disease in patients who have not demonstrated significant clinical progression, and Breakthrough Therapy Designation.

Cyprium is eligible to receive up to $129 million in aggregate development and sales milestones from its partner Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sentynl”), as well as royalties on net sales of CUTX-101 as follows: (i) 3% of annual net sales up to $75 million; (ii) 8.75% of annual net sales between $75 million and $100 million; and (iii) 12.5% of annual net sales in excess of $100 million. Cyprium will retain 100% ownership over any FDA priority review voucher that may be issued if the NDA for CUTX-101 is approved.

Commercial Products and Product Candidates

Commercial and Approved Products

Through our partner company Journey we market the following branded dermatology products approved by the FDA for sale in the United States:

EMROSI (Minocycline Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsules, 40mg)

Journey received approval in November 2024 for Emrosi (also referred to as DFD-29), a 40mg minocycline hydrochloride extended release capsule for oral use indicated to treat inflammatory lesions (papules and pustules) of rosacea in adults. Emrosi is now the lowest approved oral minocycline hydrochloride dose. It was developed using Multiple Unit Pellet System technology, which combines Immediate Release (25%) and Extended Release (75%) Minocycline pellets for uniform drug release. Emrosi has shown superiority to Oracea® and placebo on the co-primary endpoints and all secondary endpoints in two Phase 3 studies, including reduction of total lesion count, as well as reduction in erythema compared to placebo in both studies and was well-tolerated. The results from the Phase 3 studies were published in JAMA Dermatology in March 2025.

The NDA was filed under Section 505(b)(2) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) in January 2024 and was approved in November 2024 by the FDA (NDA 219015). Emrosi has Orange Book-listed patents that extend through January of 2039. In March 2025, Journey announced the commercial launch of Emrosi.

UNLOXCYT (cosibelimab-ipdl)

Our partner company Checkpoint received approval in December 2024 for UNLOXCYT, which is the first and only programmed death-ligand 1 blocking antibody to receive FDA marketing approval for the treatment of adults with metastatic cSCC or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation.

UNLOXCYT is a fully human monoclonal antibody of IgG1 subtype that directly binds to PD-L1 and blocks the PD-L1 interaction with the programmed death receptor-1 (“PD-1”) and B7.1 receptors. The primary mechanism of action is based on the inhibition of the interaction between PD-L1 and its receptors PD-1 and B7.1, which removes the suppressive effects of PD-L1 on anti-tumor CD8+ T-cells to restore the cytotoxic T cell response. Additionally, UNLOXCYT has been shown to induce antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (“ADCC”) in vitro.

Checkpoint commenced a Phase 1, multi-center clinical study for cosibelimab-ipdl in October 2017 to evaluate the safety and tolerability of ascending doses in checkpoint therapy-naive patients with selected recurrent or metastatic cancers. Following completion of dose escalation in March 2018, multiple dose expansion cohorts were initiated, including cohorts in locally advanced and metastatic cSCC. The primary endpoint is objective response rate (“ORR”), and secondary endpoints include duration of response, progression-free survival (“PFS”), and overall survival. In January 2022, top-line results were announced from a cohort of this study with cosibelimab-ipdl administered as a fixed dose of 800 mg every two weeks in patients with metastatic cSCC. The cohort met its primary endpoint, with cosibelimab-ipdl demonstrating a confirmed ORR of 47.4% (95% CI: 36.0, 59.1) based on independent central review of 78 patients enrolled in the metastatic cSCC cohort using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (“RECIST 1.1”). In June 2022, interim results were announced from another cohort of this study with cosibelimab-ipdl administered as a fixed dose of 800 mg every two weeks in patients with locally advanced cSCC that are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation in which cosibelimab-ipdl demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 54.8% (95% CI: 36.0, 72.7) based on independent central review of 31 patients enrolled in the cohort. In July 2023, longer-term results were announced for cosibelimab-ipdl from its pivotal studies in locally advanced and metastatic cSCC. These results demonstrated a deepening of response over time, resulting in complete response rates of 26% and 13% in locally advanced and metastatic cSCC, respectively. Additionally, the confirmed ORR in metastatic cSCC increased to 50.0% based on independent central review. Furthermore, responses continue to remain durable over time with the median duration of response not yet reached in either group. Updated safety data across 247 patients enrolled and treated with cosibelimab-ipdl in all cohorts of the ongoing study remain consistent with those previously reported.

​

Based on these results, Checkpoint submitted a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA in January 2023. On December 15, 2023, the FDA issued a complete response letter (“CRL”) citing only findings that arose during a multi-sponsor inspection of Checkpoint’s third-party contract manufacturing organization as approvability issues to address in a resubmission. In July 2024, Checkpoint announced the completion of a resubmission of the BLA to the FDA to potentially address the approvability issues cited in the CRL. In December 2024, Checkpoint announced that the FDA granted approval for UNLOXCYT (cosibelimab-ipdl) for the treatment of adults with metastatic cSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. The recommended commercial dosage of UNLOXCYT is 1,200 mg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every three weeks. In January 2025, Checkpoint

submitted a labeling supplement to the FDA to update the UNLOXCYT label to reflect the longer-term data announced in July 2023.  

​

In March 2025, we announced that Checkpoint entered into an agreement to be acquired by Sun Pharma for $4.10 per share in cash plus a contingent value right of up to $0.70 per share upon the achievement of EU approval. The closing of the transaction is subject to various conditions including the approval by requisite majorities of holders of Checkpoint’s shares at a meeting of Checkpoint’s stockholders. We expect the transaction to close in the second quarter of 2025, although there can be no assurance that the transaction closes in a timely manner, or at all. Due to uncertainties as to the timing of the completion of the acquisition, uncertainties as to whether Checkpoint’s stockholders will vote to approve the transaction, the possibility that competing offers will be made and the possibility that various closing conditions for the transaction may not be satisfied or waived, Fortress may not realize the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction in the time frame expected, or at all.

Late Stage Product Candidates

CUTX-101 (copper histidinate injection for Menkes disease)

Our subsidiary Cyprium was previously developing CUTX-101, a copper histidinate injection for the treatment of Menkes disease. Menkes disease is a rare X-linked pediatric disease caused by gene mutations of copper transporter ATP7A, which affects approximately 1 in 34,810 live male births, and potentially as high as 1 in 8,664 live male births, based on a recent genome-based ascertainment study. Menkes disease is characterized by distinctive clinical features, including sparse and depigmented hair (“kinky hair”), failure to thrive, connective tissue disorders and severe neurological symptoms such as seizures and hypotonia. Biochemically, Menkes patients may have low serum copper levels, as well as abnormal levels of catecholamine, but definitive diagnosis is typically made by sequencing of the ATP7A gene. There is no current FDA-approved treatment for Menkes disease. CUTX-101, along with an AAV-ATP7A gene therapy that is being developed by Cyprium, was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products. CUTX-101 was also granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation by the FDA for the treatment of Menkes disease, Fast Track Designation for classic Menkes disease in patients who have not demonstrated significant clinical progression, and Breakthrough Therapy Designation.

In August 2020, Cyprium reported positive top-line clinical efficacy results for CUTX-101. The study demonstrated statistically significant improvement in overall survival for Menkes disease subjects who received early treatment (“ET”) with CUTX-101, compared to an untreated historical control (“HC”) cohort, with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of death (Hazard Ratio = 0.21, p<0.0001). Median survival for the ET cohort was 14.8 years (177.1 months) compared to 1.3 years (15.9 months) for the untreated HC cohort.

On February 24, 2021, Cyprium entered into a development and asset purchase agreement (the “Sentynl APA”) with Sentynl Therapeutics, a U.S.-based specialty pharmaceutical company owned by the Zydus Group. Under the Sentynl APA, Sentynl provided certain development funding for the CUTX-101 program, with Cyprium initially remaining in control of development of such program. Pursuant to a contractual right exercised by Sentynl in October 2023, Cyprium assigned the NDA and certain other assets pertaining to the CUTX-101 program to Sentynl and received $4.5 million in connection with the closing of such transaction.

Sentynl is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize CUTX-101, including the funding of the same. Additionally, Cyprium remains eligible to receive up to $129 million in aggregate development and sales milestones under the Agreement, and royalties on net sales of CUTX-101 as follows: (i) 3% of annual net sales up to $75 million; (ii) 8.75% of annual net sales between $75 million and $100 million; and (iii) 12.5% of annual net sales in excess of $100 million. Cyprium will retain 100% ownership over any FDA priority review voucher that may be issued if the NDA for CUTX-101 is approved.

On January 6, 2025, we announced that the FDA accepted the NDA for CUTX-101 for priority review, and on January 16, 2025, we disclosed the extension of the PDUFA target action date to September 30, 2025.

Cyprium previously enrolled patients into an Intermediate-Size Patient Population Expanded Access Protocol which is now administered by Sentynl Therapeutics. Additional information on the Expanded Access study and requirements can

be found on ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT04074512. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Triplex (cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine)

Through our subsidiary Helocyte, we are developing Triplex, a universal recombinant Modified Vaccinia Ankara viral vector vaccine engineered to induce a rapid, robust and durable virus-specific T cell response to three immuno-dominant proteins (UL83 (pp65), UL123 (IE1), and UL122 (IE2)) linked to cytomegalovirus (“CMV”). In a Phase 1 study, Triplex was observed to be safe, well-tolerated and highly immunogenic when administered to healthy volunteers at multiple dose levels (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01941056). In a Phase 2 trial, Triplex was observed to be safe, well-tolerated, highly immunogenic and a reduction in CMV events in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients was observed (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02506933).

As of March 2025, Triplex is currently the subject of multiple, ongoing trials in various clinical settings including: patients undergoing stem cell transplant; adults co-infected with CMV and Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”); and in combination with a CAR T cell therapy for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (“NHL”) or acute lumphoblastic leukemia (“ALL”). Helocyte has an exclusive, worldwide license to Triplex from COH. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Solid organ transplant

In May 2024, Helocyte announced that the first patient was dosed in a multi-center, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 2 study of Triplex for control of CMV in patients undergoing liver transplantation. The trial is funded by a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health that could provide over $20 million in aggregate, non-dilutive funding (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06075745).

Stem cell transplant

In January 2025, Helocyte announced that the first patient was dosed in a Phase 2 multi-center, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to evaluate Triplex’s effectiveness when administered to human leukocyte antigen (“HLA”) matched related stem cell donors to reduce CMV events in adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (“HSCT”). The trial is funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06059391).

​

Helocyte anticipates that its Phase 2 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study measuring the safety and effectiveness of Triplex in reducing CMV complications in patients previously infected with CMV and undergoing donor hematopoietic cell transplant to be completed in the second half of 2025 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02506933).

​

Additionally, Helocyte is recruiting for a Phase 1/2 trial to study side effects and dosage for Triplex in treating pediatric patients with positive cytomegalovirus who are undergoing donor stem cell transplant (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354728).

​

HIV

In December 2021, Helocyte announced that a Phase 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Triplex, a CMV vaccine, in eliciting a CMV-specific immune response and reducing CMV replication in people living with HIV. The trial is being conducted by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group and is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05099965).

Additionally, a trial has been initiated for a Phase 1 trial to evaluate the feasibility and safety of Triplex in combination with a bispecific CMV-HIV CAR for adults living with HIV-1 on stable ART who have maintained viral suppression. The study is funded by a $11.3 million grant from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in addition to other non-dilutive sources (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06252402).

Oncology

Helocyte is currently recruiting for two Phase 1 trials in combination with autologous CMV-specific CD19 CAR T cell therapy for adults with intermediate or high grade B-lineage NHL, and in settings following stem cell transplant in patients with high grade B-cell NHL (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05801913 and NCT05432635).

​

Additionally, a trial has been initiated for a Phase 1 trial in combination with an allogeneic anti-CD19-CAR CMV-specific T cell therapy for patients with high-risk ALL after matched related donor hematopoietic stem cell transplant (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06735690).

​

CAEL-101 (monoclonal antibody for AL amyloidosis)

Our former subsidiary Caelum, in collaboration with AstraZeneca plc (“AstraZeneca”), is working to develop a novel, first-in-class monoclonal antibody called CAEL-101 for the treatment of amyloid light chain (“AL”) amyloidosis. CAEL-101 is designed to improve organ function by reducing or eliminating amyloid deposits in the tissues and organs of patients with AL amyloidosis. The antibody is designed to bind to insoluble light chain amyloid protein, including both kappa and lambda subtypes and received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA as a therapy for patients with AL amyloidosis, and as a radio-imaging agent in AL amyloidosis. CAEL-101 is currently in two Phase 3 trials for AL amyloidosis and additional information on those trials can be found at ClinicalTrials.gov using identifiers: NCT04512235 and NCT04504825. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In October 2021, AstraZeneca acquired Caelum for an upfront payment of approximately $150 million paid to Caelum shareholders, of which approximately $56.9 million was paid to Fortress, which was net of the ten percent escrow holdback amount and other miscellaneous transaction expenses. The agreement also provides for additional potential payments to Caelum shareholders totaling up to $295 million, payable upon the achievement of regulatory and commercial milestones. Fortress is eligible to receive 42.4% of all possible potential milestone payments, which together with the upfront payment, would total up to approximately $182 million.

Early and Mid-Stage Product Candidates

Dotinurad (urate transporter (URAT1) inhibitor for gout)

Through our subsidiary Urica Therapeutics, Inc. (“Urica”), we acquired an exclusive license from Fuji Yakuhin Co. Ltd. (“Fuji”) to develop a URAT1 inhibitor product candidate in development for the treatment of gout, dotinurad, in North America, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. In July 2024, Urica entered into an asset purchase agreement, royalty agreement, and related agreements (collectively, the “Transaction Documents”) with Crystalys Therapeutics, Inc. (“Crystalys”). Crystalys is a Delaware corporation founded in 2023 and seeded by leading life sciences institutional investors. Under the Transaction Documents, Urica transferred rights to dotinurad and related intellectual property, licenses and agreements to Crystalys. In return, Crystalys issued to Urica shares of its common stock equal to 35% of Crystalys’ outstanding equity including certain anti-dilution provisions through the raise of $150 million in equity securities. The Transaction Documents also granted Urica a secured 3% royalty on future net sales of dotinurad to be paid by Crystalys, and a right to receive nominal cash reimbursement payments for certain clinical and development costs incurred by Urica related to dotinurad.

Dotinurad was approved in Japan in 2020 as a once-daily oral therapy for gout and hyperuricemia and in China in December 2024 for the treatment of gout patients with hyperuricemia.

MB-101 (IL13Rα2 CAR T Cell Program for Glioblastoma)

Mustang is currently developing MB-101 for malignant brain tumors, including glioblastoma (“GBM”). MB-101 is an optimized CAR T product targeting IL13Rα2 on the surface of the malignant cells and incorporates enhancements in CAR T design and T cell engineering to improve antitumor potency and T cell persistence.

GBM is the most common brain and central nervous system (“CNS”) cancer, accounting for approximately 52% of malignant primary brain and CNS tumors and approximately 14% of all primary brain and CNS tumors. On average during

the years 2017 through 2021, more than 13,000 new cases of GBM were diagnosed per year in the U.S. While GBM is a rare disease, with only 3.3 cases per 100,000 persons per year in the U.S., it is quite lethal, with a median survival of only 9 months. Standard of care therapy for patients less than 70 years of age consists of maximal surgical resection, radiation, chemotherapy with temozolomide, and alternating electric field therapy. This front-line regimen has remained relatively unchanged for the last 20 years due to the failure of novel therapies to improve survival, and there is no standard of care whatsoever for recurrent GBM.

Immunotherapy approaches targeting brain tumors offer promise over conventional treatments. IL13Rα2 is an attractive target for CAR T therapy, as it has limited expression in normal tissue but is over-expressed on the surface of greater than 50% of GBM tumors. CAR T cells are designed to express membrane-tethered IL-13 receptor ligand mutated at a single site (glutamic acid at position 13 to a tyrosine; E13Y) with high affinity for IL13Rα2 and reduced binding to IL13Rα1 in order to reduce healthy tissue targeting (Kahlon KS et al. Cancer Research. 2004;64:9160-9166).

Having optimized MB-101 dose, schedule, route of administration and T cell selection in a completed Phase 1 trial, ongoing COH sponsored studies include:

Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The final planned MB-101 trial will be in combination with the HSV-1 oncolytic virus (MB-108) in treating patients with recurrent or refractory glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma. The objective of this trial is to turn immunologically “cold” tumors “hot” with MB-108 in order to potentially enhance the efficacy of MB-101, then infuse MB-101 loco-regionally as was done in the Phase 1 single-agent MB-101 trial. The combination of MB-101 and MB-108 is referred to as MB-109.

MB-108 (HSV-1 Oncolytic Virus C134 for recurrent GBM)

MB-108 is a next-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus (“oHSV”) treatment in development at Mustang that is conditionally replication competent; that is, it is designed to replicate in tumor cells, but not in normal cells, thus killing the tumor cells directly through this process. It was in-licensed from Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham (“UAB”) is evaluating the safety of this oncolytic virus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma in an ongoing Phase 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03657576). Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The rationale for in-licensing MB-108 was to potentially enhance the efficacy of MB-101 by first turning immunologically “cold” malignant glioma tumors “hot” with MB-108, then infusing MB-101 loco-regionally, as was done in the Phase 1 single-agent MB-101 trial. This combination is to be referred to as MB-109.

MB-109 (MB-101 (IL13Rα2-targeted CAR T Cell Therapy) + MB-108 (HSV-1 oncolytic virus))

Mustang is developing MB-109, a combination approach of MB-101 and MB-108, as a potential treatment for IL13Rα2+ relapsed or refractory glioblastoma (“GBM”) and anaplastic astrocytoma (“AA”). An attractive novel approach to control glioblastoma is adoptive cellular immunotherapy utilizing CAR T cells. CAR T cells can be engineered to recognize very specific antigenically distinct tumor populations and to migrate through the brain parenchyma to kill malignant cells. In addition, oncolytic viruses (“OVs”) have been developed to effectively infect and kill cancer cells in the tumor, as well as modify the microenvironment to increase tumor immunogenicity and immune cell trafficking within the tumor. Due to

these properties, OVs have been studied in combination with other treatments to enhance the effectiveness of immunotherapies.

Preliminary anti-tumor activity has been observed in clinical studies administering the OV (MB-108) and CAR T cell therapy (MB-101) as single agents; however, the combination has not yet been explored. To determine if the combination of both therapies will result in a synergistic effect, investigators from COH developed preclinical studies in orthotopic GBM models in nude mice. Dr. Christine Brown from City of Hope presented these preclinical studies at the American Association for Cancer Research 2022 Annual Meeting. It was observed that co-treatment with MB-108 OV and IL13Rα2-directed CAR-T cells gave no adverse events and, more notably, that pre-treatment with MB-108 re-shaped the tumor microenvironment by increasing immune cell infiltrates and enhanced the efficacy of sub-therapeutic doses of CAR-T cell therapy delivered either intraventricularly or intratumorally. These preclinical studies aimed to provide a deeper understanding of this combination approach to support the potential benefit of a combination study that will evaluate an oHSV (MB-108) and IL13Rα2-directed CAR-T cells (MB-101).

In October 2023, Mustang announced that the FDA had accepted the Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application of MB-109 for the treatment of recurrent GBM and high-grade astrocytoma. Mustang is currently planning a Phase 1 clinical study that will investigate increasing doses of intratumorally administered MB-108 followed by dual intratumoral and intraventricular administration of MB-101 to treat recurrent GBM and high-grade astrocytomas that express IL13Rα2 on the surface of tumor cells.

In November 2024, Mustang announced that the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Mustang for MB-108 for the treatment of malignant glioma.

Mustang is currently exploring with COH to conduct an investigator-sponsored single-institution trial under the COH IND to treat patients with IL13Rα2+ recurrent GBM and high-grade astrocytoma with MB-109 that could potentially be initiated in the fourth quarter of 2025.

MB-106 (CD20-targeted CAR T cell therapy)

Mustang is currently developing MB-106 in a collaboration with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (“Fred Hutch”), a CD20-targeted, 3rd generation autologous CAR T-cell therapy, for patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (“NHL”), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (“CLL”), and autoimmune diseases. In the first quarter of 2024, Mustang completed a successful End-of-Phase 1 meeting with the FDA regarding a potential pivotal Phase 2 single-arm clinical trial for the treatment of Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (“WM”). Per the discussions, the FDA agreed with the proposed overall design of the pivotal trial for WM at the recommended dose of 1 x 10⁷ CAR-T cells/kg and requested only minimal modifications to the study protocol. Due to limited resources, and as a result of the reduction in work force conducted in 2024, Mustang does not expect to initiate a pivotal Phase 2 single-arm clinical trial of MB-106 for the treatment of WM trial in 2025.

Also in the first quarter of 2024, Mustang completed enrollment of the indolent lymphoma arm in the multicenter Phase 1 trial. The tenth and final patient enrolled on that arm was a patient with follicular lymphoma (FL) who achieved a complete response following treatment with 1 x 10⁷ CAR-T cells/kg. As a result, the overall complete response rate for FL in the Phase 1 portion of this trial was sustained at 100% (N=6), with no occurrence of cytokine release syndrome (“CRS”) above grade 1 and no immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (“ICANS”) of any grade, despite not using prophylactic tocilizumab or dexamethasone.

In March 2024, Mustang announced plans to collaborate with Fred Hutch for a proof-of-concept Phase 1 investigator-sponsored clinical trial evaluating MB-106 in autoimmune diseases.

Also in March 2024, Mustang was granted the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation by the FDA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory CD20 positive WM and FL, based on potential improvement in response as seen in clinical data to date.

In June 2024, Mustang announced that updated data for MB-106 in the Phase 1/2 Fred Hutch investigator-sponsored trial showed a favorable safety and efficacy profile in 10 patients with WM. There was an ORR of 90% with durable responses

observed, including three complete responses (“CR”), two very good partial responses (“VGPR”), and four partial responses (“PR”). One of the patients who achieved a CR remained in remission for 31 months, with an immunoglobulin M (IgM) level that decreased rapidly to the normal range after treatment with MB-106 and remained normal since. Patients had a median of nine prior lines of therapy, and only one patient started additional anti-WM treatment after being treated with MB-106. From a safety perspective, CRS occurred in nine patients: five patients with grade 1 and four patients with grade 2. One patient experienced grade 1 ICANS. No grade 3 or 4 CRS or grade 2, 3 or 4 ICANS was observed, despite dose escalation.

In May 2024, Mustang informed the clinical sites participating in the Mustang-sponsored Phase 1/2 study in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MB106-CD20-001, that Mustang had decided to close the trial. In June 2024, Mustang similarly informed the clinical sites participating in the Mustang-sponsored Long-term Follow-up Study in Patients Previously Treated with Mustang Bio, Inc. CAR-T Cell Investigational Products, MB100-OBS-001, that Mustang had decided to close that trial. As a result, further clinical development of MB-106 is currently focused solely on autoimmune diseases unless funding and resources become available to restart the program for hematologic malignancies.

Planning for the aforementioned Phase 1 investigator-sponsored clinical trial in autoimmune diseases is in progress, with initiation of the trial planned for 2025.

AJ201 (Nrf1 and Nrf2 activator, androgen receptor degradation enhancer)

In February 2023, Avenue announced the license of intellectual property rights underlying AJ201 from AnnJi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (“AnnJi”). AJ201 is currently being studied in a Phase 1b/2a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial at six clinical sites across the U.S. for the treatment of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (“SBMA”), also known as Kennedy’s Disease (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05517603). Enrollment was completed in January 2024. Information on clinicaltrials.gov does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

SBMA is a rare, inherited, X-linked genetic neuromuscular disease primarily affecting men and AJ201 was designed to modify SBMA through multiple mechanisms including degradation of the abnormal AR protein and by stimulating Nrf1 and Nrf2, which are involved in protecting cells from oxidative stress which can lead to cell death.

AJ201 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for the indications of SBMA, Huntington’s Disease, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia.

On March 3, 2025, Avenue received a “notice of intent to terminate” letter from AnnJi, the licensor of AJ201 , with respect to the license agreement under which Avenue was granted rights to the product candidate; Avenue believes that the grounds for termination stated in the purported termination notice are without merit and intends to avail itself of the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the AJ201 license agreement.

IV Tramadol

Our partner company Avenue is developing an intravenous formulation of tramadol (“IV tramadol”), a schedule IV opioid for the treatment of post-operative acute pain. Avenue completed two Phase 3 efficacy studies in 2018 and 2019 and announced that both had met their primary endpoints and all key secondary endpoints. In December 2019, Avenue submitted an NDA for IV tramadol to treat moderate to moderately severe postoperative pain pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and following a CRL received in October 2020, resubmitted the NDA in February 2021. The FDA assigned a PDUFA goal date of April 12, 2021 for the resubmitted NDA for IV Tramadol. On June 14, 2021, Avenue announced that the receipt of a second CRL. Avenue submitted a formal dispute resolution request (“FDRR”) with the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA on July 27, 2021. On August 26, 2021, Avenue received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of Neuroscience of the FDA in response to the FDRR submitted on July 27, 2021. On August 31, 2021, Avenue submitted a FDRR with the Office of New Drugs (“OND”) of the FDA. On October 21, 2021, Avenue received a written response from the OND of the FDA stating that the OND needs additional input from an Advisory Committee in order to reach a decision on the FDRR.

In February 2022, Avenue held an Advisory Committee meeting with the FDA regarding IV tramadol. In the final part of the public meeting, the Advisory Committee voted yes or no on the following question: “Has the Applicant submitted

adequate information to support the position that the benefits of their product outweigh the risks for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in an inpatient setting?” The results were 8 yes votes and 14 no votes. In March 2022, Avenue received an Appeal Denied Letter from the Office of New Drugs in response to the formal dispute resolution request. In August 2022, Avenue participated in a Type A Meeting with the FDA Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products (“DAAAP”) regarding a briefing document submitted that presented a study design Avenue believed would have the potential to address the comments and deficiencies noted in the Letter.

In January 2024, Avenue announced that they reached final agreement with the FDA on the Phase 3 safety study protocol and statistical analysis approach, including the primary endpoint. The final non-inferiority study is designed to assess the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression related to opioid stacking on IV tramadol compared to IV morphine. The study will randomize approximately 300 post bunionectomy patients to IV tramadol or IV morphine for pain relief administered during a 48-hour post-operative period. Of note, the same surgical model was used in a pivotal Phase 3 Trial. In the Phase 3 safety study to be conducted, patients will have access to IV hydromorphone, a Schedule II opioid, for rescue of breakthrough pain. The primary endpoint is a composite of elements indicative of respiratory depression. Avenue plans to initiate the study in the future, subject to having the necessary financing.

BAER-101 (GABA_A α2/3 positive allosteric modulator)

Through Avenue’s subsidiary Baergic, we are developing BAER-101, a high affinity, selective modulator of the gamma-aminobutyric acid (“GABA”) A, which is a receptor system with differential binding and modulatory properties dependent on the particular GABA A subtype. Baergic intends to explore BAER-101 in a number of CNS disorders where patients are not adequately treated, including epilepsy and acute anxiety disorders.

In August 2023, Avenue reported preclinical data for BAER-101 from an in vivo evaluation in SynapCell’s Genetic Absence Epilepsy Rate from Strasbourg (“GAERS”) model of absence epilepsy. The GAERS model mimics behavioral, electrophysiological and pharmacological features of human absence seizures and has shown to be an early informative indicator of efficacy in anti-seizure drug development. In the model, BAER-101 demonstrated full suppression of seizure activity with a minimal effective dose of 0.3 mg/kg administered orally. In December 2023, Avenue presented the preclinical in vivo data evaluating BAER-101 using the GAERS model of absence epilepsy at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 2023 Annual Meeting.

Olafertinib (also known as CK-101, EGFR inhibitor for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC)

Checkpoint is currently evaluating a lead small-molecule, targeted anti-cancer agent, olafertinib, as an oral, third-generation, irreversible kinase inhibitor against selective mutations of epidermal growth factor receptors (“EGFR”) for the potential treatment of adult patients with metastatic NSCLC, whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletion mutations. Checkpoint believes that olafertinib has the potential to be effective in this population as a monotherapy or in combination with other anti-tumor immune response potentiating compounds. Olafertinib has FDA Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Preclinical Product Candidates

AAV-ATP7A Gene Therapy

Through our subsidiary Cyprium, we are developing adeno-associated virus (“AAV”)-based gene therapy (“AAV-ATP7A”) for the treatment of Menkes disease. Cyprium entered into a license agreement with Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to acquire the global rights to develop and commercialize AAV-ATP7A gene therapy. AAV-ATP7A gene therapy has demonstrated the ability to rescue neurological phenotypes and improve survival when coadministered with copper histidinate injections in a mouse model of Menkes disease and has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA.

In March 2024, Cyprium announced a $4.1 million grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (“NINDS”) of the NIH was awarded to the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Principal Investigator, Stephen G. Kaler, M.D., M.P.H., to fund the completion of preclinical studies, manufacturing, and preparation of an IND application for a first-in-human clinical trial.

AVTS-001 Gene Therapy

In April 2023, we announced the execution of an asset purchase agreement, pursuant to which 4D Molecular Therapeutics (“4DMT”) acquired Aevitas’ proprietary rights to its short-form human complement factor H (“sCFH”) asset for the treatment of complement-mediated diseases. Under the terms of the agreement, Aevitas is eligible to receive cash payments from 4DMT totaling up to $140 million in potential late-stage development, regulatory and sales milestones. A range of single-digit royalties on net sales are also payable.

Prior to the agreement with 4DMT, Aevitas licensed the sCFH asset from the University of Pennsylvania and also collaborated with University of Massachusetts Medical to optimize AAV constructs.

CK-103 (BET Inhibitor)

Checkpoint is currently developing CK-103, a novel, selective and potent small molecule inhibitor of bromodomain and extra-terminal (“BET”) bromodomains. Checkpoint plans to develop CK-103 for the treatment of various advanced and metastatic solid tumor cancers, including, but not limited to, those associated with elevated c-Myc expression. Checkpoint entered into an exclusive license agreement with Jubilant Biosys Limited to develop and commercialize novel compounds that inhibit BET bromodomains on a worldwide basis. Checkpoint entered into a Sublicense Agreement with TGTX to develop and commercialize CK-103 in the field of hematological malignancies. Checkpoint retains the right to develop and commercialize CK-103 in solid tumors. Currently, Checkpoint has completed the required CMC, pharmacology and toxicology activities that it believes will support an IND application filing.

CEVA-D and CEVA-102

Through our subsidiary Cellvation, we are developing CEVA-D, a novel bioreactor device that is designed to enhance the anti-inflammatory potency of bone marrow-derived cells without genetic manipulation, using wall shear stress to suppress tumor necrosis factor-a (“TNF-a”) production by activated immune cells. CEVA-102 is the first cell product produced by CEVA-D, and may be applicable for various indications, including the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury.

CK-302 (Anti-GITR)

CK-302 is a fully human agonistic monoclonal antibody in development at Checkpoint that is designed to bind and trigger signaling in Glucocorticoid-Induced TNFR-Related (“GITR”) expressing cells. Scientific literature indicates GITR is a co-stimulatory molecule of the TNF receptor family and is expressed on activated T cells, B cells, NK and regulatory T cells. Checkpoint believes that an anti-GITR monoclonal antibody has the potential to be effective in one or more oncological indications as a monotherapy or in combination with an anti-PD-L1 antibody as well as other anti-tumor immune response potentiating compounds and targeted therapies.

CK-303 (Anti-CAIX)

Also in development at Checkpoint is CK-303, a fully human anti-carbonic anhydrase IX (“CAIX”) antibody designed to recognize CAIX expressing cells and kill them via antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (“CDC”). Scientific literature indicates that CAIX is a well characterized tumor associated antigen with expression almost exclusively limited to the cells of renal cell carcinoma (“RCC”). More than 85% of RCC cases have been demonstrated to express high levels of CAIX expression. There is very limited expression of this antigen on healthy tissue which Checkpoint believes will limit reactivity of this antibody against healthy tissues.

ONCOlogues (Oligonucleotide Platform)

Our subsidiary Oncogenuity is developing a delivery platform that allows peptic nucleic acids to enter a cell membrane and nucleus, displace the targeted mutant DNA strand, and prevent mutant mRNA transcription. Oncogenuity is seeking to optimize lead candidates targeting genetically driven cancers, including KRAS G12D, and other genetic disorders.

Intellectual Property Generally

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates, formulations, processes, methods and any other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, both in the United States and abroad. However, patent protection may not afford us with complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents.

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge, experience and know-how of our management and research and development personnel, as well as that of our advisers, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how, which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we currently, and will in the future, rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all of our employees, consultants, advisers and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

Competition

We operate in highly competitive segments of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical markets. We face competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies, and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for drugs. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes are active in research in direct competition with us. We 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.

Our competitors are pursuing the development and/or acquisition of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and over-the-counter (“OTC”) products that target the same diseases and conditions that we are targeting in biotechnology, biopharmaceutical, dermatological and other therapeutic areas. If competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with therapeutic or cost advantages, our products can be subject to progressive price reductions or decreased volume of sales, or both. Most new products that we 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 products include quality, efficacy, market acceptance, price, and marketing and promotional efforts, patient access programs and product insurance coverage reimbursement.

The only pharmaceutical area in which we sell marketed products is dermatology, and the dermatology competitive landscape is highly fragmented, with a large number of mid-size and smaller companies competing in both the prescription sector and the OTC sector. Our competitors are pursuing the development and/or acquisition of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and OTC products that target the same diseases and conditions that we are targeting in dermatology. Competitive factors vary by product line and geographic area in which our products are sold. The principal methods of competition for our products include quality, efficacy, market acceptance, price, and marketing and promotional efforts.

Branded products often must compete with therapeutically similar branded or generic products or with generic equivalents. Such competition frequently increases over time. For example, if competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with therapeutic or cost advantages, our products could be subject to progressive price reductions and/or decreased volume of sales. To successfully compete for business, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits, but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care. Accordingly, we face pressure to continually seek out technological innovations and to market our products effectively.

Our major competitors in dermatology, including Galderma Laboratories, Almirall, Ortho-Dermatologics, Mayne Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Leo Pharma, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics, among others, vary depending on therapeutic and product category, dosage strength and drug-delivery systems, among other factors.

Generic Competition

Our partner company Journey faces increased competition from manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical products, who may submit applications to FDA seeking to market generic versions of Journey’s products. In connection with these applications, the generic drug companies may seek to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents through litigation. When patents covering certain of our products (if applicable) expire or are successfully challenged through litigation or in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proceedings, if a generic company launches a competing product “at risk,” or when the regulatory or licensed exclusivity for our products (if applicable) expires or is otherwise lost, we may face generic competition as a result. Generic versions are generally significantly less expensive than branded versions, and, where available, may be required to be utilized before or in preference to the branded version under third-party reimbursement programs, or substituted by pharmacies. Accordingly, when a branded product loses its market exclusivity, it normally faces intense price competition from generic forms of the product. To successfully compete for business with managed care and pharmacy benefits management organizations, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits, but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care. Generic products generally face intense competition from other generic equivalents (including authorized generics) and therapeutically similar branded or generic products.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing.

United States Pharmaceutical Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical (drug and biological) products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and implementing regulations. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product-development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA compliance and enforcement actions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial compliance or enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally includes the following:

The regulatory review and approval process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. The process of seeking required approvals before we can market or sell a product, and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial resources and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain the appropriate marketing authorization for any product candidate.

Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the pharmaceutical product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the pharmaceutical product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. 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. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA places the IND 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 pharmaceutical product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that submission of an IND will automatically result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that causes such clinical trial to be suspended or terminated.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the pharmaceutical product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by the sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA if conducted under a U.S. IND. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) or ethics committee if conducted outside of the United States, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB or ethics committee is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB or ethics committee also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. We intend to use third-party clinical research organizations (“CROs”) to administer and conduct our planned clinical trials and will rely upon such CROs, as well as medical institutions, clinical investigators and consultants, to conduct our trials in accordance with our clinical protocols and to play a significant role in the subsequent collection and analysis of data from these trials. The failure by any of such third parties to meet expected timelines, adhere to our protocols or meet regulatory standards could adversely impact the subject product development program. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval studies, or Phase 4 clinical trials, may be required after initial receipt of marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and may be required by the FDA after it has been approved, and is on the market, as an ongoing condition of approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or, if used, its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB or ethics committee can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s or ethics committee’s requirements or if the pharmaceutical product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

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

United States Review and Approval Process

The data and results generated from product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the pharmaceutical product, proposed labeling and other required information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA submission before the product can be marketed and sold.

The review and approval process for an NDA or BLA is lengthy and difficult and the FDA may not approve an NDA or BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or if the data and results in the submission are insufficient to support a finding of safety and efficacy, FDA may also require additional clinical data or other data and information to address deficiencies in an application. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Even if a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited with respect to dosages, indications for use, or other label claims related to those disease states, conditions and patient populations for which the product is safe and effective and, 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. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs, which impose additional regulatory requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. We cannot be certain that we or our suppliers will be able to fully comply with the cGMPs or other FDA regulatory requirements.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any pharmaceutical products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing postmarket regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, promoting pharmaceutical products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the pharmaceutical product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, compliance and enforcement actions initiated by the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties. The FDA also may require Phase 4 testing, risk minimization action plans and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, accelerated approval, priority review and breakthrough therapy designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures. To be eligible for fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a drug is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and based on preclinical or preliminary clinical data demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six- and ten-month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, drugs studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint and under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Moreover, a sponsor can request designation of a drug candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval and priority review. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Additionally, under FDORA, a platform technology incorporated within or utilized by a drug or biological product is eligible for designation as a designated platform technology if (1) the platform technology is incorporated in, or utilized by, a drug approved under an NDA; (2) preliminary evidence submitted by the sponsor of the approved or licensed drug, or a sponsor that has been granted a right of reference to data submitted in the application for such drug, demonstrates that the platform technology has the potential to be incorporated in, or utilized by, more than one drug without an adverse effect on quality, manufacturing, or safety; and (3) data or information submitted by the applicable person indicates that incorporation or utilization of the platform technology has a reasonable likelihood to bring significant efficiencies to the drug development or manufacturing process and to the review process. A sponsor may request the FDA to designate a platform technology as a designated platform technology concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND application for a drug that incorporates or utilizes the platform technology that is the subject of the request. If so designated, the FDA may expedite the development and review of any subsequent original NDA for a drug that uses or incorporates

the platform technology. Designated platform technology status does not ensure that a drug will be developed more quickly or receive FDA approval.

Even if a product candidate or our platform qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation, do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Section 505(b)(2) Regulatory Approval Pathway  

Section 505(b)(2) was added to the Act by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA provides an alternate regulatory pathway for approval of a new drug by allowing the FDA to rely on data not developed by the applicant. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where one or more of the investigations relied upon by the applicant for approval was not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely upon published literature and/or the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved drug already on the market. Approval or submission of a 505(b)(2) application, like those for abbreviated new drugs, or ANDAs, may be delayed because of patent and/or exclusivity rights that apply to the previously approved drug.

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

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

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

Orange Book Listing and Paragraph IV Certification

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

If an applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the approved drug and the patent owner once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA holder or patent owner may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to

notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the earlier of 30 months from the date of the lawsuit, the applicant’s successful defense of the suit, or expiration of the patent.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, special incentives exist for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases or conditions, which are defined to include those diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Requests for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the submission of an NDA or BLA.

If a product that has an orphan drug designation is the first such product to receive FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity for that use. This means that, subsequent to approval, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug that designated orphan use, except in limited circumstances, for seven years. The FDA may approve a subsequent application from another person if the FDA determines that the application is for a different drug or different use, or if the FDA determines that the subsequent product is clinically superior, or that the holder of the initial orphan drug approval cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the public’s need. If the FDA approves someone else’s application for the same drug that has orphan exclusivity, but for a different use, the competing drug could be prescribed by physicians outside its FDA approval for the orphan use, notwithstanding the existence of orphan exclusivity. A grant of an orphan designation is not a guarantee that a product will be approved. If a sponsor receives orphan drug exclusivity upon approval, there can be no assurance that the exclusivity will prevent another person from receiving approval for the same or a similar drug for the same or other uses.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity and Patent Term Extensions

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension (“PTE”) under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a PTE of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The PTE period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension. In the future, we intend to apply for PTE for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovator drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical

studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Orphan drug exclusivity, as described below, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the U.S. which, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods for all formulations, dosage forms, and indications of the active moiety and patent terms. This six month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA issued “Written Request” for such a trial, provided that at the time pediatric exclusivity is granted there is not less than nine months of term remaining.

Pediatric Information

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

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act provides BLA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity-patent or non-patent-for a product if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within a specific time frame.

DEA Regulation

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) imposes various registration, record-keeping and reporting requirements, procurement and manufacturing quotas, labeling and packaging requirements, security controls, prescription and order form requirements and restrictions on prescription refills for certain kinds of pharmaceutical products. A principal factor for determining the particular requirements of the CSA applicable to a product, if any, is its actual or potential abuse profile, which is classified into a DEA schedule. A product may be listed as a Schedule I, II, III, IV or V controlled substance, with Schedule I presenting the highest perceived risk of abuse and Schedule V presenting the least.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance and registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances and less stringent requirements for Schedules III, IV, and V. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as vaults and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA.

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

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

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the United States Department of Justice, the DEA and individual United States Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and state and local governments.

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

The ACA broadened the reach of the fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-7b. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute.

Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available for any products for which we obtain regulatory approval to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in research and product development. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation and regulations, including the ACA. The ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the payments received for any approved drug. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government healthcare programs result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. We are unable to predict what these changes may look like in the future.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials, pricing and reimbursement, and commercial sales and distribution of any product candidates. Importantly, the level of evidence of efficacy and safety necessary to apply for marketing authorization for a drug candidate differs from country to country, the approval process also varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. Typically, if a foreign regulatory authority is satisfied that a company has presented adequate evidence of safety, quality and efficacy, then the regulatory authority will grant a marketing authorization. This foreign regulatory approval process, however, involves risks similar or identical to the risks associated with FDA approval discussed above, and therefore there are no guarantees that any company will be able to obtain the appropriate marketing authorization for any product in any particular country.

Employees and Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2024, we had 101 full-time employees at Fortress and our subsidiaries and partner companies. None of our employees is represented by a labor union. We have retained a number of expert advisors and consultants who help navigate us through different aspects of our business. We consider our relations with our employees to be good and have not experienced any work stoppages, slowdowns or other serious labor problems that have materially impeded our business operations.

Our human capital management objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, and integrating our new and existing employees. The principal purpose of our equity incentive plan is to attract, retain, and motivate selected employees, consultants, and directors through the granting of share-based compensation awards and cash-based bonus awards.

Available Information

We and certain of our affiliates file annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy and information statements and amendments to reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”). The SEC also maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our Company and other companies that file materials with the SEC electronically. Copies of our and certain of our affiliates’ reports on Form 10-K, Forms 10-Q and Forms 8-K may also be obtained, free of charge, electronically through our website at www.fortressbiotech.com. Our website also includes announcements of investor conferences and events, information on our business strategies and results, corporate governance information, and other news and announcements that investors might find useful or interesting. The information contained on our website is not included in, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Investing in our Common Stock, our 9.375% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock, $0.001 par value (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) or any other type of equity or debt securities we may issue from time to time (together our “Securities”) involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including the consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as the risks, uncertainties and other information set forth in the reports and other materials filed or furnished by our partner companies Avenue, Checkpoint, Journey and Mustang with the SEC, before deciding to invest in our Securities. If any of the following risks or the risks included in the public filings of Avenue, Checkpoint, Journey or Mustang were to materialize, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the market price of our Securities could decline, and you could lose part of or all of your investment in our Securities. In addition, you should be aware that the below stated risks should be read as being applicable to our subsidiaries and partner companies such that, if any of the negative outcomes associated with any such risk is experienced by one of our subsidiaries or partner companies, the value of Fortress’ holdings in such entity may decline. As used throughout this filing, the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress individually, to one or more subsidiaries and/or partner companies, or to all such entities as a group, as dictated by context.

Risks Inherent in Drug Development

Most of our product candidates are in the early stages of development and may not be successfully developed or commercialized, and the product candidates that do advance into clinical trials may not receive regulatory approval.

Most of our existing product candidates remain in the early stages of development and will require substantial further capital expenditures, development, testing and regulatory approvals prior to commercialization. The development and regulatory approval processes can take many years, and it is unlikely that our product candidates, even if successfully developed and approved by the FDA and/or foreign equivalent regulatory bodies, would be commercially available for several years. Only a small percentage of drugs under development successfully obtain regulatory approval and are successfully commercialized. Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to fund development programs, we cannot be sure that any of our product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized, which could result in the failure of our business and a loss of your investment.

Pharmaceutical development has inherent risks. Before we may seek regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate, through well-controlled clinical trials, that our product candidates are effective and have a favorable benefit-risk profile for their target indications. Success in early clinical trials is not necessarily indicative of success in later stage clinical trials, during which product candidates may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety or efficacy, despite having progressed through initial clinical testing, which may cause significant setbacks. Further, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials that are not currently anticipated. As a result, product candidates that we advance into clinical trials may never receive regulatory approval.

Even if any of our product candidates are approved, regulatory authorities may approve any such product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may place limitations on our ability to commercialize products at the intended price points, may grant approval contingent on the product’s performance in costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a label that does not include the claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. The regulatory authority may also require the label to contain warnings, contraindications, or precautions that limit the commercialization of the product. In addition, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), or foreign equivalent, may schedule one or more of our product candidates under the Controlled Substances Act, or its foreign equivalent, which could impede such product’s commercial viability. Any of these scenarios could impact the commercial prospects for one or more of our current or future product candidates.

The extensive regulation to which our product candidates are subject may be costly and time consuming, cause anticipated or unanticipated delays, and/or prevent the receipt of the required approvals for commercialization.

The research and clinical development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of any product candidate, including our product candidates, is subject to

extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States and by comparable health authorities in foreign markets. In the United States, we are not permitted to market a product candidate until the FDA approves such product candidate’s BLA or NDA. The approval process is uncertain, expensive, often spans many years, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In addition to significant and expansive clinical testing requirements, our ability to obtain marketing approval for product candidates depends on the results of required non-clinical testing, including the characterization of the manufactured components of our product candidates and validation of our manufacturing processes.

The FDA may determine that our manufacturing processes, testing procedures or equipment and facilities are inadequate to support approval. Further, the FDA has substantial discretion in the pharmaceutical approval process and may change approval policies or interpretations of regulations at any time, which could delay, limit or preclude a product candidate’s approval.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies may delay, limit or refuse approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including, but not limited to:

Foreign approval procedures vary by country and may, in addition to the aforementioned risks, involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. In addition, rapid drug and biological development during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions about the safety and efficacy of certain marketed pharmaceuticals and may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in reviewing new pharmaceuticals based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals may prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Delays in the commencement of our clinical trials, or suspensions or terminations of such trials, could result in increased costs and/or delay our ability to pursue regulatory approvals.

The commencement or resumption of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including, but not necessarily limited to, delays in:

Any delays in the commencement of our clinical trials will delay our ability to pursue regulatory approval for product candidates. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the termination of a given development program or the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

If any of our product candidates causes unacceptable adverse safety events in clinical trials, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize such product, if approved, preventing us from generating revenue from such products’ sale. Alternatively, even if a product candidate is approved for marketing, future adverse events could lead to the withdrawal of such product from the market.

Suspensions or delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in increased costs and/or delay or prevent our ability to complete development of that product candidate or generate product revenues.

Once a clinical trial has begun, patient recruitment and enrollment may be slower than we anticipate due to the nature of the clinical trial plan, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for participation in the study or other factors. Clinical trials may also be delayed as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results or difficulties in obtaining sufficient quantities of product manufactured in accordance with regulatory requirements and on a timely basis. Further, a clinical trial may be modified, suspended or terminated by us, an IRB, an ethics committee or a data safety monitoring committee overseeing the clinical trial, any clinical trial site with respect to that site, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities, due to a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to:

Regulatory requirements and guidance may change, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Any such change may require us to resubmit clinical trial protocols to IRBs, which may in turn impact a clinical trial’s cost, timing, and likelihood of success. If any clinical trial is delayed, suspended, or terminated, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for that product candidate will be delayed, and the commercial prospects, if any, for the product candidate may suffer. In addition, many of these factors may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

If our competitors develop treatments for any of our product candidates’ target indications and those competitor products are approved more quickly, marketed more successfully or demonstrated to be more effective, the commercial opportunity for our product candidates will be reduced or eliminated.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to rapid and intense technological change. We face, and will continue to face, competition in the development and marketing of our product candidates from academic institutions, government agencies, research institutions and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, new developments, including the development of other drug technologies and methods of preventing the incidence of disease, occur in the pharmaceutical industry at a rapid pace. Any of these developments may render one or more of our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive.

Competitors may seek to develop alternative formulations that do not directly infringe on our in-licensed patent rights. The commercial opportunity for one or more of our product candidates could be significantly harmed if competitors are able to develop alternative formulations outside the scope of our in-licensed patents. Compared to us, many of our potential competitors have substantially greater:

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we are able to, or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property or exclusivity rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, safe, useful and/or less costly than ours and may be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. We will also face competition from these third parties in establishing clinical trial sites, in patient registration for clinical trials, and in identifying and in-licensing new product candidates.

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of the therapies that underpin many of our product candidates may damage public perception of our product candidates, or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

If any of the technologies underpinning our product candidates, including gene therapy, is claimed to be unsafe, such product candidate may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The success of our gene therapy platforms in particular depends upon physicians who specialize in treating the diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments involving our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. Adverse events in our clinical

trials, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could lead to increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that do obtain approval and/or a decrease in demand for any such product candidates. Concern about environmental spread of our products, whether real or anticipated, may also hinder the commercialization of our products.

The making, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of controlled substances are subject to regulation by state, federal and foreign law enforcement and other regulatory agencies.

Controlled substances are subject to state, federal and foreign laws and regulations regarding their manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution. Controlled substances are regulated under the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”) and regulations of the DEA. IV tramadol, under development by our partner company Avenue, will be subject to these regulations.

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse and no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.

Various states also independently regulate controlled substances. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule drugs as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug when the DEA does so, in other states there must be rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any controlled substance drug product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval and adverse scheduling could impair the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or our collaborators must also obtain separate state registrations in order to be able to obtain, handle and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions from the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

For any of our products classified as controlled substances, we and our suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, customers and distributors are required to obtain and maintain applicable registrations from state, federal and foreign law enforcement and regulatory agencies and comply with state, federal and foreign laws and regulations regarding the manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of controlled substances. There is a risk that DEA regulations may limit the supply of the compounds used in clinical trials for our product candidates and the ability to produce and distribute our products in the volume needed to both meet commercial demand and build inventory to mitigate possible supply disruptions.

Regulations associated with controlled substances govern manufacturing, labeling, packaging, testing, dispensing, production and procurement quotas, recordkeeping, reporting, handling, shipment and disposal. These regulations increase the personnel needs and the expense associated with development and commercialization of product candidates including controlled substances. The DEA, and some states, conduct periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to obtain and maintain required registrations or comply with any applicable regulations could delay or preclude us from developing and commercializing our product candidates containing controlled substances and subject us to enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings. Because of their restrictive nature, these regulations could limit commercialization of any of our product candidates that are classified as controlled substances, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

The FDA limits regulatory approval for our product candidates to those specific indications and conditions for which clinical safety and efficacy have been demonstrated.

Any regulatory approval is limited to the indications for use and related treatment of those specific diseases set forth in the approval for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by the FDA. In addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product also requires FDA approval. If we are not able to obtain

FDA approval for any desired future indications for our products, our ability to effectively market and sell our products may be reduced and our business may be adversely affected.

While physicians may prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s label or that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities (“off label uses”), our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications that are specifically approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the U.S. generally do not regulate the practice of medicine or behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies regarding the promotion of off-label use.

If our promotional activities fail to comply with these regulations or guidelines, we may be subject to compliance or enforcement actions, including Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, by, these authorities. In addition, our failure to follow FDA laws, regulations and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising may cause the FDA to suspend or withdraw an approved product from the market, request a recall, institute fines, or could result in disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, corrective advertising, injunctions or criminal prosecution, any of which could harm our business.

If the FDA does not conclude that a product candidate satisfies the requirements for the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for such product candidate under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for the product candidate will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in either case may not be successful.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDCA, would allow an NDA we submit to FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved compounds, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for these product candidates, and complications and risks associated with these product candidates, would likely substantially increase. We could need to obtain more additional funding, which could result in significant dilution to the ownership interests of our then existing stockholders to the extent we issue equity securities or convertible debt. We cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain such additional financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway would likely result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which would likely materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization in a timely manner, or at all.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2) over the last few years, certain brand-name pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its Section 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2). In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to faster product development or earlier approval.

Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved under Section 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

Risks Pertaining to the Need for and Impact of Existing and Additional Financing Activities

We have historically financed a significant portion of our growth and operations in part through the assumption of debt. Should an event of default occur under any applicable loan documents, our business would be materially adversely affected. Further, our current credit arrangement with Oaktree restricts our and certain of our subsidiaries’ and partner companies’ abilities to take certain actions.

At December 31, 2024, the total amount of debt outstanding, net of the debt discount, was $58.0 million. If we default on our obligations, the holders of our debt may declare the outstanding amounts immediately payable together with accrued interest, and/or take possession of any pledged collateral. If an event of default occurs, we may be unable to cure it within the applicable cure period, if at all. If the maturity of our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not have sufficient funds available for repayment and we may be unable to borrow or obtain sufficient funds to replace the accelerated indebtedness on terms acceptable to us, or at all. In addition, current or future debt obligations may limit our ability to finance future operations, satisfy capital needs, or to engage in, expand or pursue our business activities. Such restrictions may also prevent us from engaging in activities that could be beneficial to our business and our stockholders unless we repay the outstanding debt, which may not be desirable or possible.

On July 25, 2024, we, as borrower, entered into a $50.0 million senior secured credit agreement (the “Oaktree Agreement”) with Oaktree Fund Administration, LLC and the lenders from time-to-time party thereto (collectively, “Oaktree”). We borrowed $35.0 million under the Oaktree Agreement on the date of the agreement and are eligible to draw up to an additional $15.0 million with the lenders’ consent. The Oaktree Agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, including, among other things, restrictions on indebtedness, liens, investments, mergers, dispositions, prepayment of other indebtedness, and dividends and other distributions, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, the Oaktree Agreement contains certain financial covenants, including, (i) a requirement that we maintain a minimum liquidity of $7.0 million, which may be reduced or increased as described in the Oaktree Agreement, and (ii) that product net sales of Journey meet a consolidated minimum net sales amount of $50.0 million on a trailing 12-month basis, tested quarterly, which may be reduced or increased as described in the Oaktree Agreement (the “Minimum Net Sales Test”), subject to certain exclusions. Failure by the Company to comply with the financial covenants will result in an event of default, subject to certain cure rights with respect to the Minimum Net Sales Test. The Oaktree Agreement contains events of default that are customary for financings of this type, in certain circumstances subject to customary cure periods. In addition, the Company is also required to (i) raise common equity, or receive in monetizations or distributions, by the end of each calendar year prior to the maturity date, in an aggregate amount equal to the greater of $20 million or 50% of an amount set forth in an annual budget delivered to the lenders and (ii) maintain a specified minimum equity stake in Journey.  The breach of any other such provisions (even, potentially, in an immaterial manner) could result in an event of default under the Oaktree Agreement, the announcement and impact of which could have a negative impact on the trading prices of our securities. The restrictions imposed by such provisions may also inhibit our and certain of our subsidiaries and partner companies’ ability to enter into certain transactions or arrangements that management otherwise believes would be in our or such partner companies’ best interests, such as dispositions that would result in cash inflows to Fortress and/or our subsidiaries and partner companies, or acquisitions or financings that would promote future growth.

We have a history of operating losses that is expected to continue, and we are unable to predict the extent of future losses, whether we will be able to sustain current revenues or whether we will ever achieve or sustain profitability.

We continue to generate operating losses in all periods including losses from operations of approximately $110.4 million and $142.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. At December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $740.9 million. We expect to make substantial expenditures and incur increasing operating costs and interest expense in the future, and our accumulated deficit will increase significantly as we expand development and clinical trial activities for our product candidates and finance investments in certain of our existing and new subsidiaries in accordance with our growth strategy. Our losses have had, and are expected to continue to have, an adverse impact on our working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if:

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

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

To fund our operations and service our debt securities, which may be deemed to include our Series A Preferred Stock, we will be required to generate a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash depends on a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, and any failure to meet our debt obligations would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Common Stock and/or Series A Preferred Stock to decline.

Prevailing economic conditions and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, may affect our ability to make payments on our debt. If we do not generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our debt obligations,

we may have to undertake alternative financing plans, such as refinancing or restructuring our debt, selling assets, reducing or delaying capital investments or seeking to raise additional capital. Alternatively, as we have done in the past, we may also elect to refinance certain of our debt, for example, to extend maturities. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. If we are unable to access the capital markets, whether because of the condition of those capital markets or our own financial condition or reputation within such capital markets, we may be unable to refinance our debt. In addition, any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. Our inability to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our debt obligations or to refinance our obligations on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Repayment of our indebtedness is dependent in part on the generation of cash flow by Journey and its ability to make such cash available to us, by dividend, debt repayment or otherwise. Journey may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable us to make payments in respect of our indebtedness. Each of our subsidiaries and partner companies, including Journey, is a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries and partner companies.

Our ability to continue to reduce our indebtedness will depend upon factors including our future operating performance, our ability to access the capital markets to refinance existing debt and prevailing economic conditions and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. We can provide no assurance of the amount by which we will reduce our debt, if at all. In addition, servicing our debt will result in a reduction in the amount of our cash flow available for other purposes, including operating costs and capital expenditures that could improve our competitive position and results of operations.

We may need substantial additional funding and may be unable to raise capital when needed, which may force us to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our R&D programs, commercialization efforts or planned acquisitions and potentially change our growth strategy.

Our R&D programs will require substantial additional capital for research, preclinical testing and clinical trials, establishing pilot scale and commercial scale manufacturing processes and facilities, and establishing and developing quality control, regulatory, marketing, sales, and administrative capabilities to support these programs. We expect to fund our R&D activities from a combination of cash generated from royalties and milestones from our partners in various past, ongoing, and future collaborations, and through additional equity or debt financings from third parties. These financings could depress the trading prices of our Securities. If additional funds are required to support our operations and such funds cannot be obtained on favorable terms, we may not be able to develop products, which will adversely impact our growth strategy.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. During the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we incurred R&D expenses of approximately $56.6 million and $101.7 million, respectively. We expect to continue to spend significant amounts on our growth strategy. We believe that our current cash and cash equivalents will enable us to continue to fund operations in the normal course of business for at least the next 12 months from the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve profitability, we expect to seek to finance potential cash needs.

Our ability to obtain additional funding when needed, changes to our operating plans, our existing and anticipated working capital needs, the acceleration or modification of our planned R&D activities, expenditures, acquisitions and growth strategy, increased expenses or other events may affect our need for additional capital in the future and require us to seek additional funding sooner or on different terms than anticipated. In addition, if we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we might have to delay, curtail or eliminate one or more of our R&D programs and commercialization efforts and potentially change our growth strategy, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline. The terms of our existing debt arrangements, including that with Oaktree, have and will continue to inhibit our and our subsidiaries’ abilities to raise capital.

We may be unable to generate returns for our investors if our partner companies and subsidiaries, several of which have limited or no operating history, have no commercialized revenue generating products or, if not yet profitable, cannot obtain additional third-party financing.

As part of our growth strategy, we have made and will likely continue to make substantial financial and operational commitments in our subsidiaries, which often have limited or no operating history, have no commercialized revenue generating products, and require additional third-party financing to fund product and services development or acquisitions. Our business depends in large part on the ability of one or more of our subsidiaries and/or partner companies to innovate, in-license, develop or acquire successful biopharmaceutical products and/or acquire companies in increasingly competitive and highly regulated markets. If certain of our subsidiaries and/or partner companies do not successfully obtain additional third-party financing to commercialize products or are not acquired in change-of-control transactions that result in cash distributions, as applicable, the value of our businesses and our ownership stakes in our partner companies may be materially adversely affected, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Raising additional funds by issuing securities or through licensing or lending arrangements may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing Common Stock (or other Securities that are convertible into or exercisable for shares of Common Stock), the share ownership of existing stockholders will be diluted. We have also entered into financing arrangements to raise capital for our subsidiaries under which Common Stock is or may be issuable to investors in lieu of cash, upon certain conditions being met; in the event such issuances take place, they will also be dilutive of the stakes of existing stockholders. Any future debt financings may impose covenants that restrict our operations, including by limiting our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, redeem our stock, make certain financial commitments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions, among other restrictions. In addition, if we raise additional funds through licensing or sublicensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish potentially valuable rights to our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

We have paused dividend payments on our Series A Preferred Stock and may not be able to resume payment of dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock in the future if we have insufficient cash or available “surplus” as defined under Delaware law to make such dividend payments.

On July 5, 2024, our board of directors paused the payment of dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock until further notice. However, dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock accrue daily, are payable monthly and will continue to accrue from the last date of payment. Our board of directors deemed the foregoing to be in the best interests of the Company and its common stockholders in light of the Company’s current and anticipated financial condition and outlook, and after considering its fiduciary duties to the Company’s common stockholders and other relevant factors. Our ability to pay cash dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock in the future requires us to have either net profits or positive net assets (total assets less total liabilities) over our capital, and that we have sufficient working capital in order to be able to pay our debts as they become due in the usual course of business. Our ability to pay dividends may also be impaired if any of the risks described in this report were to occur. Also, payment of our dividends depends upon our financial condition and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We cannot assure you that we will have sufficient cash or “surplus” to resume payment of the cash dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock in a timely manner, or at all.

Because we have paused dividend payments on our Series A Preferred Stock, we are currently ineligible to file new short-form registration statements on Form S-3, which may impair our ability to raise capital on terms favorable to us, in a timely manner or at all.

​

Form S-3 permits eligible issuers to conduct registered offerings using a short-form registration statement that allows the issuer to incorporate by reference its past and future filings and reports made under the Exchange Act. In addition, Form S-3 enables eligible issuers to conduct primary offerings “off the shelf” under Rule 415 of the Securities Act. The shelf registration process, combined with the ability to forward incorporate information, allows issuers to avoid delays and interruptions in the offering process and to access the capital markets in a more expeditious and efficient manner than raising capital in a standard registered offering pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1.

As a result of our decision to pause dividend payments on our Series A Preferred Stock, we will not be eligible to register the offer and sale of our securities using a registration statement on Form S-3 until we pay all accumulated dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock, resume payments of newly accruing dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and enter a fiscal year during which we missed no such dividend payments. Should we wish to register the offer and sale of our securities to the public prior to the time we are eligible to use Form S-3, both our transaction costs and the amount of time required to complete the transaction could increase, making it more difficult to execute any such transaction successfully and thereby potentially adversely affecting our financial condition.

​

We have never paid and currently do not intend to pay cash dividends in the near future, except for the dividend we previously paid on our Series A Preferred Stock. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our Common Stockholders.

We have never paid cash dividends on our Common Stock, or made stock dividends, except for the dividend we previously paid on shares of our Series A Preferred Stock, and we currently intend to retain future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our businesses, and retain our stock positions. In addition, the terms of existing and future debt agreements may preclude us from paying cash or stock dividends. Equally, each of our subsidiaries and partner companies is governed by its own board of directors with individual governance and decision-making regimes and mandates to oversee such entities in accordance with their respective fiduciary duties. As a result, we alone cannot determine the acts that could maximize value to you of such partner companies and subsidiaries in which we maintain ownership positions, such as declaring cash or stock dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our Common Stock will be the sole source of gain for holders of our Common Stock for the foreseeable future.

We have historically relied in part on sales of our common stock and other securities to fund our operations, and our future ability to obtain additional capital through stock sales or other securities offerings may be more costly than in the past, or may not be available to us at all.

We have historically relied in part on sales of our common stock to fund our operations. For example, we raised an aggregate of approximately $36.6 million in net proceeds in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 and $1.0 million in net proceeds in fiscal 2025 to date through the sale of shares of our common stock and other securities in offerings made under a Form S-3 “shelf” registration statement. Using a shelf registration statement to conduct an equity offering to raise capital generally takes less time and is less expensive than other means, such as conducting an offering under a Form S-1 registration statement. We are no longer eligible to file any new shelf registration statements due to non-payment of dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock since July 5, 2024 and because we have not resumed payment of dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock or paid all accumulated dividends, we have lost the ability to use our currently effective “shelf” registration statement on Form S-3. Accordingly, we are only able to conduct additional offerings of our securities under an exemption from registration under the Securities Act or under a Form S-1 registration statement. We would expect either of these alternatives to be a more expensive method of raising additional capital and more dilutive to our stockholders relative to using a Form S-3 shelf registration statement.

​

Risks Pertaining to Our Existing Revenue Stream from Journey Medical Corporation

Future revenue based on sales of our dermatology products, Qbrexza, Accutane, Amzeeq, Zilxi, Targadox, Exelderm, Luxamend and Emrosi, may be lower than expected or lower than in previous periods.

The vast majority of our operating income for the foreseeable future is expected to come from the sale of our dermatology products through our partner company Journey. Any setback that may occur with respect to such products could significantly impair our financial condition, cash flows and/or operating results and/or reduce the value of our Securities. Setbacks for such products could include, but are not limited to, issues related to: supply chain, shipping; distribution; demand; manufacturing; product safety; product quality; marketing; government regulation, including but not limited to pricing or reimbursement; licensing and approval; intellectual property rights; competition with existing or new products, including third-party generic competition; product acceptance by physicians, other licensed medical professionals, and patients; and higher than expected total rebates, returns or recalls. Also, a significant portion of Journey’s sales derive from products that are without patent protection and/or are or may become subject to third party generic competition; the

introduction of new competitor products, or increased market share of existing competitor products, could have a significant adverse effect on our operating income.

We face challenges as our products face generic competition and/or losses of exclusivity.

Journey’s products do and may compete with well-established products, both branded and generic, with similar or the same indications. We face increased competition from manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical products, who may submit applications to FDA seeking to market generic versions of our products. In connection with these applications, the generic drug companies may seek to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents through litigation. When patents covering certain of our products (if applicable) expire or are successfully challenged through litigation or in USPTO proceedings, if a generic company launches a competing product “at risk,” or when the regulatory or licensed exclusivity for our products (if applicable) expires or is otherwise lost, we may face generic competition as a result.

A significant portion of our sales derive from products that are without patent protection and/or are or may become subject to third-party generic competition, the introduction of new competitor products, or an increase in market share of existing competitor products, any of which could have a significant adverse impact on our operating income. Four of our marketed products, Qbrexza, Amzeeq, Zilxi, and Emrosi, for which we recently received FDA approval, currently have patent protection. Four of our marketed products, Accutane, Targadox, Luxamend and Exelderm, do not have patent protection or otherwise are not eligible for patent protection.

Accutane currently competes in the Isotretinoin market with five other therapeutically equivalent A/B rated products. Targadox currently competes with one therapeutically equivalent A/B rated generic product. Exelderm may face A/B rated generic competition in the future.

​

Generic versions are generally significantly less expensive than branded versions, and, where available, may be required to be utilized before or in preference to the branded version by third-party payors, or substituted by pharmacies. Accordingly, when a branded product loses its market exclusivity, it normally faces intense price competition from generic forms of the product. To successfully compete for business with managed care and pharmacy benefits management organizations, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits, but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care. Any reduction in sales of our products or the prices we receive for our products as a result of generic competition could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Any disruptions to the capabilities, composition, size or existence of Journey’s field sales force may have a significant adverse impact on our existing revenue stream. Further, our ability to effectively market and sell any future products that we may develop and for which we receive marketing authorization, will depend on our ability to establish and maintain sales and marketing capabilities or to enter into agreements with third parties to market, distribute and sell any such products.

Journey’s field sales force has been and is expected to continue to be an important contributor to our commercial success. Any disruptions to our relationship with such field sales force or the professional employer organization that employs our field sales force, could materially adversely affect our product sales.

The establishment, development, and/or expansion of a field sales force, either by us or certain of our partners or vendors, or the establishment of a contract field sales force to market any products for which we may have or receive marketing approval is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any such product launch or compromise the successful commercialization of such products. If we are unable to establish and maintain sales and marketing capabilities or any other non-technical capabilities necessary to commercialize any products that may be successfully developed, we will need to contract with third parties to market and sell such products. We may not be able to establish or maintain arrangements with third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

If our products are not included in managed care organizations’ formularies or coverage by other organizations, our products’ utilization and market shares may be negatively impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In the United States, continued sales and coverage, including formulary inclusion without the need for a prior authorization or step edit therapy, of our products for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment of our currently marketed products or those which we may acquire or develop in the future.

Managed care organizations and other third-party payors try to negotiate the pricing of medical services and products to control their costs. Managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers typically develop formularies to reduce their cost for medications. Formularies are based on the prices and therapeutic benefits of available products. Due to their lower costs, generic products are often favored. The breadth of the products covered by formularies varies considerably from one managed care organization to another, and many formularies include alternative and competitive products for treatment of particular medical conditions. Failure to be included in such formularies or to achieve favorable formulary status may negatively impact the utilization and market share of our products. If our products are not included within an adequate number of formularies or adequate reimbursement levels are not provided, or if those policies increasingly favor generic products, this could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our Securities to decline.

Reimbursement for our products and product candidates may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably.

We have obtained approval for some products, and intend to seek approval for other product candidates, to commercialize in both the United States and in countries and territories outside the United States. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign countries, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those countries relating to such products. In some foreign countries, particularly in the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates, if approved, will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for any of our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which pharmaceuticals they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination regarding whether a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require that we provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If reimbursement of our future products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability. Additionally, while we may

seek approval of our product candidates in combination with each other, there can be no guarantee that we will obtain coverage and reimbursement for any of our products together, or that such reimbursement will incentivize the use of our products in combination with each other as opposed to in combination with other agents which may be priced more favorably to the medical community.

Our products and future product candidates may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.

Our ability to successfully commercialize our products, or any product candidate for which we receive marketing authorization, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the healthcare industry in the United States and elsewhere is cost containment. It is currently unknown what impact, if any, proposed changes by the federal and state governments in the U.S. and similar changes in foreign countries may have on pricing and reimbursement, particularly with respect to government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.  

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system, including implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. In the United States, the Affordable Care Act was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the healthcare industry and impose additional health policy reforms. There have been significant ongoing judicial, administrative, executive and legislative efforts to modify or eliminate the Affordable Care Act.

Changes to and under the Affordable Care Act remain possible but it is unknown what form any such changes or any law proposed to replace or revise the Affordable Care Act would take, and how or whether it may affect our business in the future. We expect that changes to the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, changes allowing the federal government to directly negotiate drug prices and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry. We also expect that the Affordable Care Act, as well as other healthcare reform measures that have and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for our products and any future product candidates, if approved. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) contains substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated "maximum fair price" for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation, and requires manufacturers to provide discounts on Part D drugs. Orphan drugs that treat only one rare disease are exempt from the IRA's drug negotiation program. Substantial penalties can be assessed for noncompliance with the drug pricing provisions in the IRA. The effects of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry in general are not yet known.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional federal, state and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on our products or any future product candidates may be. In addition, increased Congressional scrutiny of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. We do not know what actions will be taken by the new presidential administration. Such actions may impact the development and commercialization of drug products and could materially harm our business and financial condition.

Risks Pertaining to our Business Strategy, Structure and Organization

We have entered, and will likely in the future enter, into certain collaborations or divestitures which may cause a reduction in our business’ size and scope, market share and opportunities in certain markets, or our ability to compete in certain markets and therapeutic categories. We have also entered into several arrangements under which we have agreed to contingent dispositions of subsidiaries, partner companies and/or their assets. The failure to consummate any such transaction may impair the value of such companies and/or assets, and we may not be able to identify or execute alternative arrangements on favorable terms, if at all.

We have entered into and consummated several partnerships and/or contingent sales of our assets and subsidiaries, including an agreement under which Checkpoint will be acquired by Sun Pharma, an equity investment and contingent acquisition agreement between Caelum and AstraZeneca  and a development funding and contingent asset purchase between Cyprium and Sentynl, of which the acquisition components of each such transaction have not yet been consummated. Each of these arrangements has been time-consuming and has diverted management’s attention, and there can be no assurance that any of these transactions closes in a timely manner, or at all. With respect to the Checkpoint acquisition in particular, due to uncertainties as to the timing of the completion of the transaction, uncertainties as to whether Checkpoint’s stockholders will vote to approve the transaction, the possibility that competing offers will be made and the possibility that various closing conditions for the transaction may not be satisfied or waived, including that a governmental entity may prohibit, delay or refuse to grant approval for the consummation of the transaction (or only grant approval subject to adverse conditions or limitations), Fortress may not realize the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction in the time frame expected, or at all. As a result of these consummated/contingent sales, as with other similar transactions that we may complete, we may experience a reduction in the size or scope of our business, our market share in particular markets, our opportunities with respect to certain markets, products or therapeutic categories or our ability to compete in certain markets and therapeutic categories.  

In addition, in connection with any transaction involving a (contingent or non-contingent) sale of one of our subsidiaries, partner companies or their assets, we may surrender our ability to realize long-term value from such asset or company, in the form of foregone product sales, royalties, milestone payments, sublicensing revenue or otherwise, in exchange for upfront and/or other payments. In the event, for instance, that a product candidate underpinning any such asset or company is granted FDA approval for commercialization following the execution of documentation governing the sale by us of such asset or company, the transferee of such asset or company may realize tremendous value from commercializing such product, which we would have realized for ourselves had we not executed such sale transaction and been able to achieve applicable approvals independently.

Should we seek to enter into collaborations or divestitures with respect to other assets or companies, we may be unable to consummate such arrangements on satisfactory or commercially reasonable terms within our anticipated timelines. In addition, our ability to identify, enter into and/or consummate collaborations and/or divestitures may be limited by competition we face from other companies in pursuing similar transactions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

Any collaboration or divestiture we pursue, whether we are able to complete it or not, may be complex, time consuming and expensive, may divert from management’s attention, may have a negative impact on our customer relationships, cause us to incur costs associated with maintaining the business of the targeted collaboration or divestiture during the transaction process and also to incur costs of closing and disposing the affected business or transferring the operations of the business to other facilities. In addition, if such transactions are not completed for any reason, the market price of our Common Stock may reflect a market assumption that such transactions will occur, and a failure to complete such transactions could result in a negative perception by the market of us generally and a decline in the market price of our Securities.

We act, and are likely to continue acting, as guarantor and/or indemnitor of the obligations, actions or inactions of certain of our subsidiaries and partner companies. We have also entered into, and may again enter into, certain arrangements with our subsidiaries, partner companies and/or third parties pursuant to which a substantial number of shares of our capital stock may be issued. Depending on the terms of such arrangements, we may be contractually obligated to pay substantial amounts to third parties, or issue a substantially dilutive number of shares of our capital stock, based on the actions or inactions of our subsidiaries and/or partner companies, regulatory agencies or other third parties.

We act, and are likely to continue acting, as indemnitor of potential losses or liabilities that may be experienced by one or more of our subsidiaries, partner companies and/or their partners or investors. If we become obligated to pay all or a portion of such indemnification amounts, our business and the market value of our Common Stock, Preferred Stock and/or debt securities may be materially adversely affected.

Additionally, we have agreed in the past, and may agree in the future, to act as guarantor in connection with equity or debt raises by our partner companies, pursuant to which we may become obligated either to pay what could be a significant amount of cash or issue what could be a significant number of shares of Common Stock or Preferred Stock if certain events occur or do not occur, which could lead to a depletion of resources or dilution to our Common Stock, or both.  

Our future growth depends in part on our ability to identify and acquire or in-license products and product candidates, and if we are unable to do so, or to integrate acquired products into our operations, we may have limited growth opportunities.

An important part of our business strategy is to continue to develop a pipeline of product candidates by acquiring or in-licensing products, businesses or technologies. Future in-licenses or acquisitions, however, may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including, but not necessarily limited to:

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

Certain of our officers and directors serve in similar roles at our partner companies, subsidiaries, related parties and/or other entities with which we transact business or in which we hold significant minority ownership positions, which could result in conflicts of interests relating to ongoing and future relationships and transactions with these parties.

We share directors and/or officers with certain of our subsidiaries, partner companies, related parties and other entities with which we transact business or in which we hold significant minority ownership positions, and such arrangements could create conflicts of interest in the future, including with respect to the allocation of corporate opportunities. While we believe that we have put in place policies and procedures to identify and mitigate such conflicts, and that any existing agreements that may give rise to such conflicts and any such policies or procedures were negotiated at arm’s length in conformity with fiduciary duties, such conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflict of interest, may nonetheless arise. The existence and consequences of such potential or perceived conflicts could expose us to lost profits, claims by our investors and creditors, and harm to our financial condition, cash flows and/or results of operations.

Certain of our executives, directors and principal stockholders, whose interests may be adverse to those of our other stockholders, can control our direction and policies.

Certain of our executive officers, directors and stockholders own nearly or more than 10% of our outstanding Common Stock and, together with their affiliates and related persons, beneficially own a significant percentage of our capital stock. If these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to influence our management and affairs and the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any sale, merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of voting power could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company on terms that other stockholders may desire. In addition, this concentration of ownership might adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock by:

If we acquire, enter into joint ventures with, or obtain a controlling interest in, companies in the future, our financial condition, operating results and the value of our Securities may be adversely affected, thereby diluting stockholder value, disrupting our business and/or diminishing the value of our holdings in our partner companies.

As part of our growth strategy, we might acquire, enter into joint ventures with, or obtain significant ownership stakes in other companies. Acquisitions of, joint ventures with and investments in other companies involve numerous risks, including, but not necessarily limited to:

If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, joint ventures or other transaction opportunities, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, we might incur higher costs than anticipated, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by economic and political conditions and the effects of these conditions on our business activities.

Any terrorist attack, other act of violence or war, including military conflicts, could result in increased volatility in, or damage to, the worldwide financial markets and economy. This includes Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the conflict between Israel and the Hamas and Hezbollah extremist groups, attacks by armed groups on cargo ships in the Red Sea, and tensions across the Taiwan Strait. For instance, the United States or other countries may impose sanctions that restrict doing business in the effected countries and increased military conflict may affect third-party vendors and cause delays.

This risk may be magnified in the case of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Russia’s invasion and the ensuing response by Ukraine may disrupt our partner companies’ ability to conduct clinical trials in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia, and potentially other neighboring countries. Although the impact of Russia’s military action is highly unpredictable, certain clinical trial sites may be affected, including those of our partner company Checkpoint in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia. Those clinical trial sites may suspend or terminate trials, and patients could be forced to evacuate or choose to relocate, making them unavailable for initial or further participation in clinical trials. For instance, Checkpoint had to terminate their Phase 3 NSCLC trial in the first quarter of 2023 as a result of such conflicts. Alternative sites to fully and timely compensate for clinical trial activities in these areas may not be available, and we may need to find other countries to conduct these clinical trials. Clinical trial interruptions may delay our plans for clinical development and approvals for our product candidates, which could increase costs and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

Additionally, trade policies and geopolitical disputes and other international conflicts can result in tariffs, sanctions and other measures that restrict international trade, and can materially adversely affect our business, particularly if these measures occur in regions where drug products are manufactured or raw materials are sourced. With the new presidential administration in the U.S., additional and higher tariffs and sanctions may be imposed on goods imported from China and other countries which could increase the cost of goods needed to commercialize our products and continue development of our current and any future product candidates. Further, such actions by the U.S. could result in retaliatory action by those countries which could impact our ability to profitably commercialize our products in those jurisdictions. As a result, our business, operations, and financial condition could be materially harmed.

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

We rely predominantly on third parties to manufacture the majority of our preclinical and clinical pharmaceutical supplies, and we expect to continue to rely heavily on such third parties and other contractors to produce commercial supplies of our product candidates and products, if approved. Further, we rely solely on third parties to manufacture Journey’s commercialized products. Such dependence on third-party suppliers could adversely impact our businesses.

We depend heavily on third party manufacturers for product supply. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to applicable specifications and FDA regulatory requirements, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain FDA approval for those products. Our third-party suppliers will be required to maintain compliance with cGMPs and will be subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable agencies and authorities in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. In the event that the FDA or such other authorities determine that our third-party suppliers have not complied with cGMPs or comparable regulations, the relevant clinical trials could be terminated or subjected to clinical hold until such time as we are able to obtain appropriate replacement material and/or applicable compliance, and commercial product could be unfit for sale, or if distributed, could be recalled from the market. Any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, testing, packaging, labeling, storage, or distribution of our products as a result of a failure of the facilities or operations of our third-party suppliers to comply with regulatory requirements, pass any regulatory agency inspection or otherwise perform under our agreements with them could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our products and product candidates. In addition, several of our currently commercialized products, sold through our partner company Journey, are produced by a single manufacturer, and, although we closely monitor inventory prophylactically, disruptions to such supply arrangements could adversely affect our ability to meet product demand and therefore diminish revenues. Finally, in light of our partner company Mustang’s recent exit from its leased manufacturing facility and reduction in force in April 2024, we may increase our reliance at Mustang on third-party manufacturers or third-party collaborators for the manufacture of commercial supply of one or more product candidates for which our collaborators or we obtain marketing approval. We may be unable to establish any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms, and even if we are able to establish such agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance entails additional risks.

We also rely on third-party manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the raw materials and equipment necessary to produce product candidates for anticipated clinical trials. There are a small number of suppliers for certain capital equipment and raw materials that are used to manufacture those products. We do not have direct control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our third-party manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials since such agreements are entered into by our third-party manufacturers and their qualified suppliers. Any significant delay in the supply of raw material components related to an ongoing clinical trial could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval.

We do not expect to have the resources or capacity to engage in our own commercial manufacturing of our product candidates, if they received marketing approval, and would likely continue to be heavily dependent upon third-party manufacturers. Our dependence on third parties to manufacture and supply clinical trial materials, as well as our planned dependence on third party manufacturers for any product candidates that may be approved, may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize products in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition to the manufacturing and supply functions they provide, third-party manufacturers also play a key role in our efforts to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, by interacting with, providing important information to, and hosting inspections by, applicable regulatory authorities. If a given contract development and manufacturing organization upon whom we rely in such a capacity is unwilling or unable to perform these activities on our behalf, the successful development and/or approval of the applicable product candidate could be delayed significantly.

In addition, because of the sometimes-limited number of third parties who specialize in the development, manufacture and/or supply of our clinical and preclinical materials, particularly in the development and manufacture of gene therapy products, we are often compelled to accept contractual terms that we deem less than desirable, including without limitation as pertains representations and warranties, supply disruptions/failures, covenants and liability/indemnification. Especially as pertains liability and indemnification provisions, because of the frequent disparities in negotiating leverage, we are often compelled to agree to low caps on counterparty liability and/or indemnification language that could result in outsized liability to us in situations where we have zero or relatively little culpability.

New environmental laws or regulations in the various jurisdictions in which we operate may also impose additional requirements that impact the way our products and product candidates are manufactured or packaged. Complying with such changes could be costly, and a failure to comply in a timely manner could lead to fines, penalties or the inability to pursue our development and commercialization activities in such jurisdictions, materially impacting our business and financial condition.

We rely heavily on third parties for the development and manufacturing of products and product candidates.

To date, we have engaged primarily in intellectual property acquisitions, and evaluative and R&D activities and have not generated any revenues from product sales (except through Journey). We have incurred significant net losses since our inception. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $740.9 million and $694.9 million, respectively. We may need to rely on third parties for activities critical to the product candidate development process, including but not necessarily limited to:

We have also not demonstrated the ability to perform the functions necessary for the successful commercialization of any of our development-stage product candidates, should any of them be approved for marketing. If we were to have any such product candidates approved, the successful commercialization of such products would be dependent on us performing or contracting with third parties for performance, of a variety of critical functions, including, but not necessarily limited to:

Our operations have been limited to acquiring, developing and securing the proprietary rights for, and undertaking pre-clinical development and clinical trials of, product candidates, both at the Fortress level and via our subsidiaries and partner companies. These operations provide a limited basis for our stockholders and prospective investors to assess our ability to develop and commercialize potential product candidates, as well as for you to assess the advisability of investing in our securities.

We rely on third parties to conduct clinical trials. If these third parties do not meet agreed-upon deadlines or otherwise conduct the trials as required, our clinical development programs could be delayed or unsuccessful, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates when expected or at all.

We rely on third-party contract research organizations and site management organizations to conduct most of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials for our product candidates. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, site management organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct some of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials. These CROs, investigators, and other third parties will and do play a significant role in the conduct of our trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data from the clinical trials.

There is no guarantee that any CROs, investigators or other third parties upon which we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical trials will devote adequate time and resources to such trials or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fails to meet expected deadlines or fails to adhere to our clinical protocols or otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated. If any of the clinical trial sites terminates for any reason, we may lose follow-up information on patients enrolled in our ongoing clinical trials unless the care of those patients is transferred to another qualified clinical trial site. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials

may serve as scientific advisers or consultants to us from time to time and receive cash and/or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site, or the FDA’s willingness to accept such data, may be jeopardized.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities or potential liability. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial and for ensuring that our preclinical studies are conducted in accordance with GLPs as appropriate. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with GCPs for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our clinical research organizations fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may refuse to accept such data, or require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced under cGMP in strict conformity to cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

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

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

As part of our strategy to mitigate development risk, we generally intend on developing product candidates with previously validated mechanisms of action and seek to assess potential clinical efficacy early in the development process. This strategy necessarily relies upon clinical and pre-clinical data and other results produced or obtained by third parties, which may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or unreliable. If the third-party data and results we rely upon prove to be inaccurate, unreliable, not acceptable by regulatory authorities or not applicable to our product candidates or acquired products, we could make inaccurate assumptions and conclusions about our current or future product candidates and our research and development efforts could be compromised.

Collaborative relationships with third parties could cause us to expend significant resources and/or incur substantial business risk with no assurance of financial return.

We anticipate substantial reliance on strategic collaborations for marketing and commercializing our existing product candidates, if approved, and we may rely even more on strategic collaborations for R&D of other product candidates. We may sell product offerings through strategic partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. If we are unable to establish or manage such strategic collaborations on terms favorable to us in the future, our revenue and drug development may be limited.

If we enter into R&D collaborations during the early phases of drug development, success will, in part, depend on the performance of research collaborators. We may not directly control the amount or timing of resources devoted by research

collaborators to activities related to product candidates. Research collaborators may not commit sufficient resources to our R&D programs. If any research collaborator fails to commit sufficient resources, the preclinical or clinical development programs related to the collaboration could be delayed or terminated. Also, collaborators may pursue existing or other development-stage products or alternative technologies in preference to those being developed in collaboration with us. Finally, if we fail to make required milestone or royalty payments to collaborators or to observe other obligations in agreements with them, the collaborators may have the right to terminate or stop performance of those agreements.

Establishing strategic collaborations is difficult and time-consuming. Our discussions with potential collaborators may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on favorable terms, if at all. Potential collaborators may reject collaboration proposals based upon their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property positions. Even if we successfully establish new collaborations, these relationships may never result in the successful development or commercialization of product candidates or the generation of sales revenue. To the extent that we enter into collaborative arrangements, the related product revenues that might follow are likely to be lower than if we directly marketed and sold products. Such collaborators may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on, and such collaborations could be more attractive than the one with us for any future product candidate.

Management of our relationships with collaborators will require:

The contractual provisions we may be forced to agree upon in services, manufacturing, supply and other agreements may be inordinately one-sided, vis-à-vis current or historical standard market terms (especially as pertains contractual liability and indemnification paradigms), and as a result we may be subject to liabilities that are not attributable to our own actions or the actions of our personnel. 

There is a finite number of service providers who can perform the services or produce the materials or product candidates that we need, and we therefore often have a limited number of options in choosing such service providers. The standard market terms in many of the agreements into which we customarily enter with such service providers are subject to evolution over time, often-times in favor of our counterparties. Also, some such agreements are “adhesion contracts” under which our contractual counterparties refuse to entertain any modifications to their template documentation. One area where service providers often have and exert leverage over us is the negotiation of liability language – specifically in broadly-scoped indemnification by us of service providers and/or the application of liability damages “caps” to certain of such service providers’ indemnification obligations. In any circumstance where we’ve been compelled to agree to such language, it is conceivable that we will be liable to third parties for liabilities in excess of such caps that are attributable to the actions, forbearances and/or culpability of such service providers and their indemnitees (and not to those of us and our personnel).

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes with Licensors Thereof

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient patent protection for our technology and products, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates and their formulations and uses. The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no

assurance that we will be successful in obtaining patents or what the scope of an issued patent may ultimately be. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

In addition, patents that may be issued or in-licensed may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented, found to be unenforceable, or otherwise may not provide any competitive advantage. Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the PTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that our efforts to establish priority of invention would be unsuccessful, resulting in a material adverse effect on our US patent positions. An adverse determination in any such submission, patent office trial, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, render unenforceable, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technologies or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Third parties are often responsible for maintaining patent protection for our product candidates, at our and their expense. If that party fails to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for a product candidate, our abilities to develop and commercialize products may be adversely affected, and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. Such a failure to properly protect intellectual property rights relating to any of our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, U.S. patent laws may change, which could prevent or limit us from filing patent applications or patent claims to protect products and/or technologies or limit the exclusivity periods that are available to patent holders, as well as affect the validity, enforceability, or scope of issued patents.

We and our licensors also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how to protect product candidates. Although we have taken steps to protect our and their trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality and non-use agreements with third parties, and proprietary information and invention assignment agreements with employees, consultants and advisers, third parties may still come upon this same or similar information independently. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may also breach the agreements and may unintentionally or willfully disclose our or our licensors’ proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to identify such breaches or obtain adequate remedies. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our or our licensors’ trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we and our licensors would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our or our licensors’ trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive positions would be harmed.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify any patentable aspects of our research and development output and methodology, and, even if we do, an opportunity to obtain patent protection may have passed. Given the uncertain and time-consuming process of filing patent applications and prosecuting them, it is possible that our product(s) or process(es) originally covered by the scope of the patent application may have changed or been modified, leaving our product(s) or process(es) without patent protection. If our licensors or we fail to obtain or maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for one or more product candidates or any future product candidate we may license or acquire, third parties may be able to leverage our proprietary information and products without risk of infringement, which could impair our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability. Moreover, should we enter into other collaborations we may be required to consult with or cede control to collaborators regarding the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of licensed patents. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents has emerged to date in the US. The patent situation outside the US is even more uncertain. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the US, and we may fail to seek or obtain patent protection in all major markets. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than US law does. We might also become involved in derivation proceedings in the event that a third party misappropriates one or more of our inventions and files their own patent application directed to such one or more inventions. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that our efforts to establish priority of invention (or that a third party derived an invention from us) would be unsuccessful, resulting in a material adverse effect on our US patent position. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the US and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. For example, the federal courts of the US have taken an increasingly dim view of the patent eligibility of certain subject matter, such as naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences, amino acid sequences and certain methods of utilizing same, which include their detection in a biological sample and diagnostic conclusions arising from their detection.

Such subject matter, which had long been a staple of the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry to protect their discoveries, is now considered, with few exceptions, ineligible in the first instance for protection under the patent laws of the US. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed and remain enforceable in our patents or in those licensed from a third party.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include changes to transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first inventor-to-file” system and to the way issued patents are challenged. The formation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board now provides a less burdensome, quicker and less expensive process for challenging issued patents. The PTO developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first inventor-to-file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our

competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

We also may rely on the regulatory period of market exclusivity for any of our biologic product candidates that are successfully developed and approved for commercialization. Although this period in the United States is generally 12 years from the date of marketing approval (depending on the nature of the specific product), there is a risk that the U.S. Congress could amend laws to significantly shorten this exclusivity period. Once any regulatory period of exclusivity expires, depending on the status of our patent coverage and the nature of the product, we may not be able to prevent others from marketing products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with our products, which would materially adversely affect our business.

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

Our success also depends on our ability, and the abilities of any of our respective current or future collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell product candidates without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing products, some of which may be directed at claims that overlap with the subject matter of our or our licensors’ intellectual property. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or proprietary technologies may infringe. Similarly, there may be issued patents relevant to our product candidates of which we or our licensors are not aware. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the US and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after a first filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or such licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in patents or pending patent applications that we own or licensed, or that we and our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In the event that a third party has also filed a US patent application relating to our product candidates or a similar invention, depending upon the priority dates claimed by the competing parties, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the PTO to determine priority of invention in the US. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that our efforts to establish priority of invention would be unsuccessful, resulting in a material adverse effect on our U.S. patent position. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our or any of our licensors’ patent rights are highly uncertain.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. If a third party claims that we or any of our licensors, suppliers or collaborators infringe the third party’s intellectual property rights, we may have to, among other things:

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our or our licensors’ patents. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against accused infringers

could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging invalidity of our or our licensors’ patents or that we infringe their patents; or provoke those parties to petition the PTO to institute inter partes review against the asserted patents, which may lead to a finding that all or some of the claims of the patent are invalid. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensor’s is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, found to be unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could likewise put pending patent applications at risk of not issuing. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

We in-license from third parties a majority of the intellectual property needed to develop and commercialize products and product candidates. As such, any dispute with the licensors or non-performance of such license agreements may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidates.

The patents, patent applications and other intellectual property rights underpinning the vast majority of our existing product candidates were in-licensed from third parties. Under the terms of such license agreements, the licensors generally have the right to terminate such agreements in the event of a material breach. The licenses require us to make annual, milestone or other payments prior to commercialization of any product, and our ability to make these payments depends on the ability to generate cash in the future. These license agreements also generally require the use of diligent and reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize product candidates.

If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of non-performance between us or one of our partners, on the one hand, and the respective licensing partner, on the other hand, regarding the rights or obligations under the license agreements, including any conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from a failure to satisfy payment obligations under such agreements, the ability to develop and commercialize the affected product candidate may be adversely affected.

The types of disputes that may arise between us and the third parties from whom we license intellectual property include, but are not necessarily limited to:

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

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates, if Approved

If any of our product candidates are successfully developed and receive regulatory approval but do not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community, the revenues that any such product candidates, if approved, generate from sales will be limited.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved by third-party payors, including government payors, generally would also be necessary for commercial success. The degree of market acceptance of any approved products would depend on a number of factors, including, but not necessarily limited to:

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products and in turn we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Even if approved, any product candidates that we may develop and market may be later withdrawn from the market or subject to promotional limitations.

We may not be able to obtain the desired labeling claims or scheduling classifications necessary or desirable for the promotion of our marketed products (or our product candidates if approved). We may also be required to undertake post-marketing clinical trials. If the results of such post-marketing studies are not satisfactory or if adverse events or other safety issues arise after approval while our products are on the market, the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority in another jurisdiction may withdraw marketing authorization or may condition continued marketing on commitments from us that may be expensive and/or time consuming to complete. In addition, if manufacturing problems occur, regulatory approval may be impacted or withdrawn and reformulation of our products, additional clinical trials, changes in labeling of our products and additional marketing applications may be required. Any reformulation or labeling changes may limit the marketability of such products if approved.

We face potential product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability for one or more of our product candidates or a future product candidate we may license or acquire and may have to limit their commercialization, if approved.

The use of one or more of our product candidates and any future product candidate we may license or acquire in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval expose us to the risk of product liability claims. For example, we may be sued if any product candidate or product we develop, license, or acquire allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product candidate or product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers or others using, administering or selling our products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against these claims, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: