UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K


☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2020


☐	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Transition Period from ____ to _____.

Commission File No. 001-35366

FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


Delaware		20-5157386
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

2 Gansevoort Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10014		10014
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)		(Zip Code)

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

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


Title of Class	Trading Symbol(s)	Exchange Name
Common Stock	FBIO	Nasdaq Capital Market
9.375% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock	FBIOP	Nasdaq Capital Market

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 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.


Large accelerated filer ☐	Accelerated filer ☐
Non-accelerated filer ⌧	Smaller reporting company ☒
	Emerging growth company ☐

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $173,878,853 based upon the closing sale price of our common stock of $2.68 on that date. Common stock held by each officer and director and by each person known to own in excess of 5% of outstanding shares of our common stock has been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. The determination of affiliate status in not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.


Class of Stock		Outstanding Shares as of March 18, 2021
Common Stock, $0.001 par value		94,907,448
9.375% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock, $0.001 par value		3,427,138

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

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 that 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. We have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology including “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. 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:

●

our growth strategy;

●

financing and strategic agreements and relationships;

●

our need for substantial additional funds and uncertainties relating to financings;

●

our ability to identify, acquire, close and integrate product candidates successfully and on a timely basis;

●

our ability to attract, integrate and retain key personnel;

●

the early stage of products under development;

●

the results of research and development activities;

●

uncertainties relating to preclinical and clinical testing;

●

the ability to secure and maintain third-party manufacturing, marketing and distribution of our and our partner companies’ products and product candidates;

●

government regulation;

●

patent and intellectual property matters; and

●

competition.

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 required by law. 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 presentation should be read as applying mutatis mutandis to every other instance of such information appearing herein.

Table of Contents

SUMMARY 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”).

Risks Inherent in Drug Development

●

Many of our and our partner companies’ product candidates are in early development stages and are subject to time and cost intensive regulation and clinical testing. As a result, our product candidates may never be successfully developed or commercialized.

●

Our competitors may develop treatments for our or our partner companies’ products’ target indications, which could limit our product candidates’ commercial opportunity and profitability.

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

●

We have a history of operating losses and we expect such losses to continue in the future.

●

We have funded our operations in part through the assumption of debt, which lending agreements may restrict our operations. Further, the occurrence of any default event under any applicable loan document could adversely affect our business.

●

Our research and development (“R&D”) programs will require additional capital, which we may be unable to raise as needed and which may impede our R&D programs, commercialization efforts, or planned acquisitions.

●

If we raise additional capital by issuing securities, our existing stockholders will be diluted.

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

●

Our operating income derives primarily from the sale of our partner company Journey’s dermatology products, particularly Ximino, Targadox and Exelderm. Any issues relating to the manufacture, sale, utilization, or reimbursement of Journey’s products (including products liability claims) could significantly impact our operating results.

●

The majority 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 an increase in market share of existing competitor products, could have a significant adverse effect on our operating income. With respect to Journey products that are covered by valid claims of issued patents, such patents may be subject to invalidation, which would harm our operating income.

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.

●

Our growth and success depend on our acquiring or in-licensing products or product candidates and integrating such products into our business.

●

We act as guarantor and/or indemnitor of certain obligations of our subsidiaries and affiliates, which could require us to pay substantial amounts based on the actions of said subsidiaries or affiliates.

Risks Pertaining to Reliance on Third Parties

●

We rely heavily on third parties for several aspects of our operations, including manufacturing and developing product candidates, conducting clinical trials, and producing commercial supplies for products. Such reliance on third-parties reduces our ability to control every aspect of the drug development process and may hinder our ability to develop and commercialize our products in a cost-effective and timely manner.

Table of Contents

Risks Pertaining to Intellectual Property and Potential Disputes with Licensors Thereof

●

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

●

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

●

We or our licensors may be subject to costly and time-consuming litigation for infringement of third-party intellectual property rights or to enforce our or our licensors’ patents.

●

Any dispute with our licensors may affect our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates.

Risks Pertaining to Generic Competition and Paragraph IV Litigation

●

Generic drug companies may submit applications seeking approval to market generic versions of our products.

●

In connection with these applications, generic drug companies may seek to challenge the validity and enforceability of our patents through litigation and/or with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Such challenges may subject us to costly and time-consuming litigation and/or PTO proceedings.

●

As a result of the loss of any patent protection from such litigation or PTO proceedings, or the “at-risk” launch by a generic competitor of our products, our products could be sold at significantly lower prices, and we could lose a significant portion of sales of that product in a short period of time, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Risks Pertaining to the Commercialization of Product Candidates

●

If our products are not broadly accepted by the healthcare community, the revenues from any such product are likely to be limited.

●

We may not obtain the desired product labels or intended uses for product promotion, or favorable scheduling classifications desirable to successfully promote our products.

●

Even if a product candidate is approved, it may be subject to various post-marketing requirements, including studies or clinical trials, the results of which could cause such products to later be withdrawn from the market.

●

Any successful products liability claim related to any of our current or future product candidates may cause us to incur substantial liability and limit the commercialization of such products.

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

●

We operate in a heavily regulated industry, and we cannot predict the impact that any future legislation or administrative or executive action may have on our operations.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress” or the “Company”) is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing pharmaceutical and biotechnology products and product candidates, which we do at the Fortress level, at our majority-owned and majority-controlled subsidiaries and joint ventures, and at entities we founded and in which we maintain significant minority ownership positions. Fortress has a talented and experienced business development team, comprising scientists, doctors and finance professionals, who identify and evaluate promising products and product candidates for potential acquisition by new or existing partner companies. Through our partner companies, we have executed arrangements with some of the world’s foremost universities, research institutes and pharmaceutical companies, including Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, AstraZeneca plc, and City of Hope National Medical Center.

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 finance expertise to help the partners achieve their goals. Partner companies assess a broad range of strategic arrangements to accelerate and provide additional funding to support research and development, including joint ventures, partnerships, out-licensings, and public and private financings. To date, three partner companies are publicly traded, and three have consummated strategic partnerships with industry leaders Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc., and InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a subsidiary of Cipla Limited).

Several of our partner companies possess licenses to product candidate intellectual property, including Aevitas Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aevitas”), Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (“Avenue”), Baergic Bio, Inc. (“Baergic”), Caelum Biosciences, Inc. (“Caelum”), Cellvation, Inc. (“Cellvation”), Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”), Cyprium Therapeutics, Inc. (“Cyprium”), Helocyte, Inc. (“Helocyte”), Journey Medical Corporation (“Journey” or “JMC”), Mustang Bio, Inc. (“Mustang”) and Oncogenuity, Inc. (“Oncogenuity”).

The Company is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2006. As used throughout this filing, the words “we”, “us” and “our” may refer to Fortress individually or together with our affiliates and partners, as dictated by context.

Product Candidates and Other Intellectual Property

Commercialized Products

Through our partner company Journey we market the following dermatology products:

Ximino®: Ximino (minocycline hydrochloride) extended release capsule is a tetracycline-class drug indicated to treat only inflammatory lesions of non-nodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris.

Targadox®: Targadox (doxycycline hyclate USP) 50mg tablets is a tetracycline-class drug indicated as adjunctive therapy for severe acne.

Exelderm®: Exelderm (sulconazole nitrate, USP) Cream and Solution are antifungal agents indicated for the treatment of tinea infection, such as ringworm and jock itch.

Ceracade®: Ceracade Skin Emulsion is a steroid-free, ceramide-dominant formulation used to treat dry skin conditions and to manage and relieve the burning and itching associated with various types of dermatitis and radiation dermatitis.

Table of Contents

Luxamend®: Luxamend Wound Cream is a water-based emulsion formulated for the dressing and management of superficial wounds, minor abrasions, dermal ulcers, donor sites, first- and second-degree burns, including sunburns, and radiation dermatitis.

Accutane®: Accutane (isotretinoin) capsules is an oral retinoid indicated for the treatment of severe recalcitrant nodular acne.

Late Stage Product Candidates

Intravenous (IV) Tramadol

Our partner company Avenue, in collaboration with InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is developing intravenous (“IV”) Tramadol, for the treatment of post-operative acute pain. IV Tramadol may fill a gap in the acute pain market between IV acetaminophen/NSAIDs and conventional IV narcotics. Avenue announced in May 2018 that its first pivotal Phase 3 study had met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints. In June 2019, Avenue announced that its second pivotal Phase 3 study had met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints. In December 2019, Avenue submitted a new drug application (“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”). On October 12, 2020, Avenue announced that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding Avenue’s NDA for IV Tramadol. In November 2020, Avenue attended a Type A Meeting with the FDA to discuss issues raised in the CRL. On February 12, 2021 Avenue resubmitted its NDA to the FDA for IV Tramadol. The NDA resubmission follows the receipt of official minutes from a Type A meeting with the FDA, which was conducted following receipt of Avenue’s CRL. The NDA resubmission included revised language relating to the proposed product label and a report relating to terminal sterilization validation. On February 26, 2021, Avenue received an acknowledgement letter from the FDA that Avenue’s resubmission of its NDA is a complete, class 1 response to the CRL, and a Prescription Drug User Fee Act goal date has been set for April 12, 2021.

CUTX-101 (Copper Histidinate injection for Menkes Disease)

Our partner company Cyprium is currently 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 recent genome-based ascertainment study. 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 also being developed by Cyprium, was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA. CUTX-101 was also granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation by the FDA for the treatment of Menkes disease and Fast Track Designation for classic Menkes disease in patients who have not demonstrated significant clinical progression. The European Medicines Agency “EMA” Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products also granted Orphan Drug Designation for CUTX-101. In August 2020 Cyprium reported positive top-line clinical efficacy results for CUTX-101. In December 2020 the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation to CUTX-101. Additional information on the Expanded Access study can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT04074512. Cyprium intends to begin the rolling submission of a NDA to the FDA for CUTX-101 in the second half of 2021.

On February 24, 2021, Cyprium announced the execution of an asset purchase agreement with Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sentynl”), a U.S.-based specialty pharmaceutical company owned by the Zydus Group. The asset purchase agreement commits Sentynl to an upfront cash payment to Cyprium of $8.0 million, which was paid upon execution of the agreement, and $12.0 million in future development and regulatory cash milestones through NDA approval, as well as potential sales milestones. Royalties on CUTX-101 net sales ranging from the mid-single digits up to the mid-twenties are also payable. Cyprium will retain development responsibility of CUTX-101 through approval of the NDA by the FDA, and Sentynl will be responsible for commercialization of CUTX-101 as well as progressing newborn screening activities. Continued development of CUTX-101 will be overseen by a Joint Steering Committee consisting of representatives from Cyprium and Sentynl. Cyprium will retain 100% ownership over any FDA priority review voucher that may be issued at NDA approval for CUTX-101.

Table of Contents

MB-107 and MB-207 (Ex vivo Lentiviral Therapy for X-linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (XSCID))

Our partner company Mustang collaborates with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (“St. Jude”) in the development of a first-in-class ex vivo lentiviral gene therapy for the treatment of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (“XSCID”), also known as bubble boy disease. On August 2, 2018, Mustang entered into an exclusive worldwide license agreement with St. Jude for the development of this therapy. XSCID is the most common form of severe combined immune deficiency. The acquisition of this license expands our pipeline into gene therapy, allowing us to leverage existing synergies for Mustang’s Worcester, Massachusetts, cell-processing facility. This gene therapy is currently in two Phase 1/2 clinical trials involving two different autologous cell products: a multicenter trial of the MB-107 product in newly diagnosed infants sponsored by St. Jude (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01512888) and a single-center trial of the MB-207 product in previously transplanted patients sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01306019). In April 2020, the EMA granted Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (“ATMP”) classification to MB-107. The FDA also previously granted Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation to MB-107 in August 2019. In the third quarter of 2020, the FDA granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Orphan Drug Designation to both MB-107 and MB-207.

In May 2020, Mustang submitted an Investigational New Product Drug Application (“IND”) application with the FDA to initiate a registrational multicenter Phase 2 clinical trial of MB-107 in newly diagnosed infants with XSCID who are under the age of two. In response, the FDA identified CMC hold issues that Mustang satisfactorily addressed in a December 2020 submission to the Agency, and the CMC hold was removed in January 2021. Potential topline data from the trial are expected in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Mustang expects to file an IND in the second quarter of 2021 for a registrational multicenter Phase 2 clinical trial of MB-207 in previously transplanted XSCID patients. Potential topline data from this trial are expected in the first half of 2023.

Cosibelimab (Anti-PD-L1 mAb for mCSCC and NSCLC)

Our partner company Checkpoint is currently evaluating its lead antibody product candidate, cosibelimab (formerly CK-301), an anti-PD-L1 antibody licensed from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in a Phase 1 clinical trial in Checkpoint therapy-naïve patients with selected recurrent or metastatic cancers, including ongoing cohorts intended to support one or more Biologics License Application (“BLA”) submissions. Additional information on the Phase 1 trial can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT03212404. Checkpoint also has a collaboration agreement with TG Therapeutics, Inc. (“TGTX”) whereby TGTX was granted the rights to develop and commercialize cosibelimab in the field of hematological malignancies.

In September 2020, Checkpoint announced interim results from the registration-enabling Phase 1 clinical trial in metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (“mCSCC”) at the European Society for Medical Oncology (“ESMO”) Virtual Congress 2020. Checkpoint expects top-line results from the trial in the second half of 2021.

In November 2020, Checkpoint announced updated results from the ongoing global, open-label, multicohort Phase 1 clinical trial including a cohort of patients with previously untreated high PD-L1 expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”).

CK-101 (EGFR inhibitor for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC)

Checkpoint is also currently evaluating a lead small-molecule, targeted anti-cancer agent, CK-101, in a Phase 1 clinical trial for the treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. In September 2018, Checkpoint announced preliminary interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial. The data were presented in an oral presentation at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (“IASLC”) 19th World Conference on Lung Cancer in Toronto. The clinical trial is ongoing to identify the optimal dose to maximize therapeutic effect, following which a Phase 3 trial is planned in treatment-naïve EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients. Additional information on the Phase 1 trial can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT02926768.

Table of Contents

In November 2020, NeuPharma, Inc. commenced a Phase 3 clinical trial in China evaluating CK-101 in treatment-naïve locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletion mutations. We intend to meet with the FDA to discuss the adequacy of the ongoing Phase 3 trial in China.

CAEL-101 (mAb for AL Amyloidosis)

Our partner company Caelum, in collaboration with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Alexion”), 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. In a Phase 1a/1b study, CAEL-101 demonstrated improved organ function, including cardiac and renal function, in 27 patients with relapsed and refractory AL amyloidosis who had previously not had an organ response to standard of care therapy. These data support CAEL-101’s potential to be a well-tolerated therapy that promotes amyloid resolution. In a Phase 2 dose escalation study, safety and tolerability of CAEL-101 supported the selection of the 1000 mg/m2 dose for the Phase 3 studies. CAEL-101 has received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA as a therapy for patients with AL amyloidosis, and as a radio-imaging agent in AL amyloidosis.

In September 2020 Caelum initiated two Phase 3 studies of CAEL-101 for AL amyloidosis. Additional information on the Phase 3 trials, both of which are actively enrolling patients, can be found at www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifiers NCT04512235 and NCT04504825.

In December 2020, AstraZeneca (“AZ”) announced its intention to acquire Alexion, with the acquisition expected to close by the third quarter of 2021, as the acquisition is subject to approval by both AZ and Alexion shareholders, as well as certain regulatory approvals, share listing approvals, and other customary closing conditions. The acquisition of Alexion by AZ triggers the Change of Control clause in the Amended and Restated Development, Option and Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by and among Caelum, Alexion, the Company, and Caelum security holders, such that Alexion’s purchase option expires on the date that is six months after the closing of any Change of Control.

Triplex (Vaccine for Cytomegalovirus)

Through our partner company 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”) complications in the transplant setting. In a Phase 1 study, Triplex was found 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 efficacious in reducing CMV events in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02506933). Triplex is currently the subject of multiple other ongoing and planned studies, one involving vaccination of the stem cell transplant donor (followed by vaccination of the recipient) in higher risk patients. Helocyte will potentially initiate studies of Triplex for CMV control in recipients of kidney and liver transplant. Helocyte secured an exclusive, worldwide license to Triplex from City of Hope National Medical Center (“COH”) in April of 2015.

CEVA101 (Cellular Therapeutic for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury)

Through our partner company, Cellvation, we are developing CEVA101, a cellular product comprised of autologous Bone Marrow-derived Mononuclear Cells (“BMMNCs”) currently being developed for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) in adults and children. In separate Phase 1 trials of adults and children with severe TBI, CEVA101 was observed to be safe, well-tolerated and efficacious (resulting in volumetric preservation versus time-matched controls, and in the case of children, reducing the Pediatric Intensity Level of Therapy or PILOT score), see ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01575470 and NCT0254722.

In a recently-completed, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center Phase 2 study of children with severe TBI, CEVA101 was similarly observed to be safe, well-tolerated and efficacious (resulting in volumetric preservation and a

Table of Contents

reduction in the PILOT score of those receiving CEVA101 versus those receiving placebo), see ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01851083). A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study of CEVA101 for the treatment of severe TBI in adults is ongoing (see ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02525432). In 2017, Cellvation secured RMAT designation for CEVA101 in the treatment of severe TBI. The RMAT designation is expected to facilitate expedited development and review of CEVA101. Cellvation secured an exclusive worldwide license to CEVA101 (as well as CEVA-D and CEVA102) from University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston in October of 2016.

Early Stage Product Candidates

MB-102 (CD123 CAR T for BPDCN)

Our partner company Mustang collaborates with COH and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (“Fred Hutch”) in the development of proprietary, autologous, chimeric antigen receptor (“CAR”) engineered T-cell (“CAR T”) therapies. CAR T therapies use the patient’s own T-cells to engage and destroy specific tumors. The process involves selecting specific T-cell subtypes, genetically engineering them to express chimeric antigen receptors and placing them back in the patient where they recognize and destroy cancer cells. We believe that harnessing the body’s own immune system to treat cancer is the next generation of cancer care that may prove curative across tumor types that have proved resistant to standard pharmacological and biological treatments.

One such CAR T is CD123 or MB-102, a subunit of the heterodimeric interleukin-3-receptor (“IL-3R”), which is widely expressed on human hematologic malignancies, including acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”). In addition, CD123 can be found on the surface of B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, hairy cell leukemia, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (“BPDCN”), myelodysplastic syndrome (“MDS”), chronic myeloid leukemia and Hodgkin lymphoma.

Mustang is currently investigating MB-102 as a target for adoptive cellular immunotherapy in BPDCN, since high CD123 expression is associated with enhanced malignant cell proliferation, increased resistance of these cells to apoptosis, and poor clinical prognosis. Depending on the early results in this patient population, Mustang may broaden the inclusion criteria to include AML and high-risk MDS. CD123 is overexpressed in the vast majority of cases of AML and high-risk MDS and in essentially all cases of BPDCN.

In October 2020, Mustang announced the dosing of the first patient in a multicenter Phase 1/2 clinical trial of MB-102 in patients with relapsed or refractory BPDCN (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04109482). This is also the first clinical trial under a Mustang IND in which a patient was dosed with cells processed in Mustang’s own manufacturing facility.

MB-101 (IL13Rα2 CAR T for Glioblastoma)

Mustang is also currently developing MB-101, an optimized CAR T product incorporating enhancements in CAR T design and T cell engineering to improve antitumor potency and T cell persistence. Having optimized dose, schedule, route of administration and T cell selection, a Phase 1 trial is currently underway at COH combining MB-101 with immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat patients with recurrent or refractory glioblastoma multiforme (“GBM”). Additional information on the trial can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT04003649.

In December 2020, Mustang and COH announced the initiation of a Phase 1 trial of MB-101 to treat patients with leptomeningeal brain tumors (e.g. glioblastoma, ependymoma, or medulloblastoma) and additional information on the trial can be found on www.clinicaltrials.gov using identifier NCT04661384. In 2021, Mustang expects to initiate a trial of MB-101 in combination with MB-108, an oncolytic virus in-licensed from Nationwide Children’s Hospital, with the goal of potentially enhancing efficacy in treating GBM.

GBM is the most common brain and central nervous system (“CNS”) cancer, accounting for 45.2% of malignant primary brain and CNS tumors, 54% of all gliomas, and 16% of all primary brain and CNS tumors. More than 13,000 new glioblastoma cases were predicted in the U.S. for 2020. Malignant brain tumors are the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 and the most common cancer occurring among 15-19 year-olds in the U.S. While GBM is a rare disease (2-3 cases per 100,000 persons per year in the US and EU), it is quite lethal, with five-year survival rates historically under 10%. Standard of care therapy consists of maximal surgical resection, radiation,

Table of Contents

and chemotherapy with temozolomide, which, while rarely curative, is shown to extend median overall survival from 4.5 to 15 months. GBM remains difficult to treat due to the inherent resistance of the tumor to conventional therapies.

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).

MB-104 (CS1 CAR T for Multiple Myeloma and Light Chain Amyloidosis)

Another Mustang program is a CAR T directed against CS1 (also known as CD319, CRACC and SLAMF7), which was identified as an NK cell receptor regulating immune functions. It is also expressed on B cells, T cells, dendritic cells, NK-T cells, and monocytes. CS1 is overexpressed in multiple myeloma (“MM”) and light chain amyloidosis (“AL”), which makes it a good target for immunotherapy. A humanized anti-CS1 antibody, elotuzumab (Empliciti®), is approved in combination with other medications for the treatment of adult patients with MM who have received prior therapies. Despite great advances in treatment, MM remains an incurable malignancy of plasma cells. AL is a protein deposition disorder that is a result of a plasma cell dysplasia, similar to MM. Immunotherapy is an attractive approach for AL because of the low burden of disease. Our academic partners at COH have developed a novel second generation CS1-specific CAR T cell therapy. In preclinical studies, they have demonstrated efficacy of these CAR T cells, both in vitro and in vivo, within the context of clinically relevant models of MM and AL. COH is evaluating the safety of this CS1-specific CAR T cell therapy in a Phase 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03710421). Once COH has established a safe and effective dose for MB-104 in this trial, Mustang expects to file an IND for a multicenter Phase 1/2 trial for the treatment of patients with MM.

MB-106 (CD20 CAR T for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma)

CD20 is a B-cell lineage-specific phosphoprotein that is expressed in high, homogeneous density on the surface of more than 95% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (“NHL”). CD20 is stable on the cell surface with minimal shedding or internalization upon binding antibody and is present at only nanomolar levels as soluble antigen. It is well established as an effective immunotherapy target, with extensive studies demonstrating improved tumor responses and survival of B-NHL patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 antibodies. A CD20-targeted third-generation autologous CAR T cell therapy is being developed by our partner company Mustang in a collaboration with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (“Fred Hutch”).

More than 70,000 new cases of NHL are diagnosed each year in the United States, and more than 19,000 patients die of this group of diseases annually. Most forms of NHL including follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, and small lymphocytic lymphoma, which account collectively for ~45% of all cases of NHL, are incurable with available therapies, except for allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (“allo-SCT”). However, many NHL patients are not suitable candidates for allo-SCT, and this treatment is also limited by significant rates of morbidity and mortality due to graft- versus-host disease. Innovative new treatments are therefore urgently needed.

Fred Hutch has an open IND for a Phase 1/2 clinical study to assess the anti-tumor activity and safety of administering CD20-directed CAR T cells (MB-106) to patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03277729). This IND was submitted on February 24, 2017, with Fred Hutch as the sponsor. The trial will also assess CAR T cell persistence and determine the potential immunogenicity of the cells, and Mustang together with Fred Hutch will determine a recommended Phase 2 dose.

Table of Contents

In December 2020, at the 62^nd American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting, Mustang and Fred Hutch announced interim data in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL from the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of MB-106. Following optimization of the cell processing, 9 patients – 7 with follicular lymphoma and 2 with mantle cell lymphoma – were treated at 4 different dose levels ranging from 1x10⁵ CAR T cells/kg to 3.3x10⁶ CAR T cells/kg. The overall response rate was 89% (8/9), and the complete response rate was 44% (4/9). One patient experienced a grade 1 episode of cytokine release syndrome, and no patients experienced immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Mustang also plans to file an IND in the first quarter of 2021 to enable the initiation of a multicenter Phase 1/2 trial of MB-106.

MB-103 (HER2 CAR T for GBM & Metastatic Breast Cancer to Brain)

HER2/neu (often shortened to “HER2”) is a growth-promoting protein on the outside of all breast cells. Breast cancer cells with higher than normal levels of HER2 are called HER2-positive (“HER2+”). These cancers tend to grow and spread faster than other breast cancers. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, with over 42,000 women in the United States expected to die from advanced metastatic disease in 2020. Approximately 20% to 25% of breast cancers overexpress HER2, which is an established therapeutic target of both monoclonal antibodies (“mAbs”) and receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. With the advent of effective mAbs directed against HER2, the median overall survival of patients with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer has improved. However, management of metastatic disease in the CNS - observed in up to 50% of HER2+ breast cancer patients - continues to be a clinical challenge in large part due to the inability of mAbs to sufficiently cross the blood-brain barrier. Although small-molecule inhibitors of HER2 exist and have been clinically approved, their single-agent efficacy in the context of metastatic disease to the brain has been limited. While HER2-targeted therapy in combination with conventional agents has shown some promise for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer, control of brain metastases remains a significant unmet clinical need, as most patients survive less than two years following CNS involvement.

CAR-based T-cell immunotherapy is being actively investigated for the treatment of solid tumors, including HER2+ cancers. Mustang’s academic partners at COH have developed a second-generation HER2-specific CAR T-cell for the treatment of refractory/relapsed HER2+ GBM, as well as for the treatment of brain and/or leptomeningeal metastases from HER2+ cancers. COH’s preclinical data demonstrate effective targeting of breast cancer brain metastases with intraventricular delivery of HER2-directed CAR T cells. COH is evaluating the safety of this HER2-specific CAR T cell therapy in two phase 1 trials that commenced in the fourth quarter of 2018. Additional information on the Phase 1 trials can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifiers NCT03389230 and NCT03696030.

MB-108 (HSV-1 Oncolytic Virus C134)

C134 is a next-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus (“oHSV”) that is conditionally replication competent; that is, it can replicate in tumor cells, but not in normal cells, thus killing the tumor cells directly through this process. It is currently in development at Mustang. 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 multiforme. Additional information on the ongoing Phase 1 trial of MB-108 can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT03657576. In 2021 Mustang intends to combine MB-108 with MB-101 to potentially enhance efficacy in treating GBM.

In October 2020 the Phase 1 trial of MB-108 was put on hold due to toxicity at the highest dose level, and UAB expects FDA clearance in the first half of 2021 in order to resume enrolling patients at a lower dose level. As a result of this clinical hold, as well as COVID-19 virus-related accrual delays in 2020, we expect that IND filing for the combination trial of MB-108 with MB-101 will be delayed until the fourth quarter of 2021.

Table of Contents

MB-105 (PSCA CAR T for Prostate & Pancreatic Cancers)

Prostate stem-cell antigen (“PSCA”) is a glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored cell membrane glycoprotein. In addition to being highly expressed in the prostate it is also expressed in the bladder, placenta, colon, kidney, and stomach. Prostate cancer may be amenable to T cell-based immunotherapy since several tumor antigens, including PSCA, are widely over-expressed in metastatic disease. Mustang’s academic partners at COH have developed a second-generation PSCA-specific CAR T cell therapy that has demonstrated robust in vitro and in vivo anti-tumor activity in patient-derived, clinically relevant, bone-metastatic prostate cancer xenograft models. COH is evaluating the safety of this PSCA-specific CAR T cell therapy in a Phase 1 trial treating patients with PSCA+ metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Additional information on this trial can be found on www.ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT03873805.

In October 2020, Mustang announced initial data from the Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with PSCA+-positive castration-resistance prostate cancer (“CRPC”). In a presentation at the Annual Prostate Cancer Foundation Scientific Retreat, the COH principal investigator reported results from a highly refractory patient treated with MB-105 who experienced a 94 percent reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), near complete reduction of measurable soft tissue metastasis by computerized tomography, and improvement in bone metastases by magnetic resonance imaging. Mustang believes additional data could potentially be provided in the second half of 2021.

BAER-101 (novel α2/3–subtype-selective GABA A positive allosteric modulator (“PAM”))

Through our majority-owned partner 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 will explore BAER-101 in a number of CNS disorders where patients are not adequately treated.

Preclinical Product Candidates

AAV-ATP7A Gene Therapy

Through our majority-owned partner Cyprium, we are developing adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) gene therapy (“AAV-ATP7A”). In March 2017, Cyprium entered into a license agreement with Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (“NICHD”) 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.

AVTS-001 Gene Therapy

Through our majority-owned partner Aevitas, we are developing AVTS-001, an AAV gene therapy to treat diseases associated with a dysregulated complement system via AAV delivery of functional short Factor H. Aevitas has licensed an engineered, fully functional shortened version of Factor H which can be packaged by AAV, from the University of Pennsylvania. Aevitas also has a collaboration with University of Massachusetts Medical to optimize AAV constructs. The lead target indications are Dry Age-related Macular Degeneration (“Dry AMD”) and autoimmune disorders with high unmet need including atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (also known as “aHUS”) and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (also known as “PNH”).

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 a collaboration with TGTX to develop CK-103 in the field of hematological malignancies. Checkpoint retains the right to develop and commercialize CK-103 in solid tumors.

Table of Contents

CEVA-D and CEVA-102

In partnership with Cellvation, we are developing CEVA-D, a novel bioreactor device that enhances the anti-inflammatory potency of bone marrow-derived cells without genetic manipulation, using wall shear stress (“WSS”) to suppress tumor necrosis factor-a (“TNF-a”) production by activated immune cells. CEVA-102 is the first cell product produced by CEVA-D, which we plan to develop for various indications, including the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) in adults and children.

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 GITR expressing cells. GITR is a co-stimulatory molecule of the TNF receptor family and is expressed on activated T cells, B cells, natural killer (“NK”) and regulatory T cells (“Treg”). Checkpoint is developing CK-302 for oncology indications where scientific literature supports the potential for an anti-GITR to be effective.

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 (“ADCC”) 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”). Checkpoint is developing CK-303 for the treatment of patients with RCC in combination with an anti-PD-L1 and/or anti-GITR antibody as well as potentially other anti-tumor immune response potentiating compounds and/or targeted therapies.

ConVax (formerly Pentamer)

We and our partner Helocyte are also developing ConVax, a universal recombinant Modified Vaccinia Ankara viral vector vaccine designed to induce robust and durable humoral and cellular immune responses to cytomegalovirus (“CMV”). ConVax is currently undergoing nonclinical development.

ONCOlogues (Oligonucleotide Platform)

Our partner company Oncogenuity is developing a delivery platform that allows peptic nucleic acids (“PNAs”) to enter cell membrane and nucleus, displace the targeted mutant DNA strand, and prevent mutant mRNA transcription. The platform has demonstrated in vitro proof-of-concept data in KRAS G12D models and 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 and our partners’ 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 and our partners currently rely and will in the future rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we and our partners 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.

Table of Contents

Competition

We and our partners 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 and our partners’ competitors have significantly greater financial, product development, manufacturing and marketing resources than us. 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 and our partners. We and our partners 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, including Galderma Laboratories, Vyne Therapeutics, Sol-Gel Technologies, Almirall, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Cassiopea, MC2 Therapeutics, EPI Health, 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.

Table of Contents

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 PTO 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 and our partners 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:

●

completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to good laboratory practices (“GLPs”) or other applicable regulations;

●

submission to the FDA of an IND, which must be in effect before human clinical trials may begin in the United States;

●

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s current good clinical practices (“GCPs”), to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed pharmaceutical product for its intended use;

●

submission to the FDA of a NDA or BLA for a new pharmaceutical product;

●

satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the pharmaceutical product is produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (“CGMPs”), to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the pharmaceutical product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

●

potential FDA audit of the preclinical and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA or BLA; and

●

FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA.

Table of Contents

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.

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 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 Institutional Review Board (“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:

●

Phase 1. The pharmaceutical product is usually introduced into a small group of healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer treatments, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.

●

Phase 2. The pharmaceutical product is evaluated in a larger, but still limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.

●

Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish safety and efficacy, the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. Generally, it has been the FDA’s position that Congress intended at least two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials for approval of an NDA or BLA or foreign authorities for approval of marketing applications.

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.

Table of Contents

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, our partners, or related suppliers, will be able to fully comply with the CGMPs and other FDA regulatory requirements.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any pharmaceutical products for which we or our partners 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.

Table of Contents

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.

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.

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 (“BPCA”), 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.

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 and individual United States Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and state and local governments.

Table of Contents

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we and our partners receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available for our products to enable us 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 Affordable Care Act (“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 following the 2020 election and subsequent change of Administration.

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

As of December 31, 2020, we had 111 full-time employees at Fortress and our partner companies.

Executive Officers of Fortress

The following table sets forth certain information about our executive officers as of December 31, 2020.


Name	Age	Position
Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D.	65	Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
Robyn M. Hunter	59	Chief Financial Officer
George Avgerinos, Ph.D.	67	Senior Vice President, Biologics Operations
Michael S. Weiss	54	Executive Vice Chairman Strategic Development

Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D. has served as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors since October 2009 and as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since December 2013. From November 2014 to August 2015, he served as interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CKPT). Dr. Rosenwald currently serves as a member of the board of directors of Fortress partner companies Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATXI), Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CKPT), and Mustang Bio, Inc. (Nasdaq: MBIO). From 1991 to 2008, Dr. Rosenwald served as the Chairman of Paramount BioCapital, Inc. He received his B.S. in finance from Pennsylvania State University and his M.D. from Temple University School of Medicine.

Table of Contents

Robyn M. Hunter was appointed as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer on June 26, 2017. Ms. Hunter has more than 30 years of financial and operational experience in an array of industries. Prior to serving as the Company’s CFO, Ms. Hunter served as the Company’s Vice President and Corporate Controller from June 2011 until June 2017, where she implemented financial and operational processes, procedures and policies to facilitate the Company’s execution of its growth strategy. From January 2006 to May 2011, Ms. Hunter served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Schochet Associates. From August 2004 to January 2006, Ms. Hunter served as the Corporate Controller for Indevus Pharmaceuticals. From 1990 to 2004, Ms. Hunter held several positions from Accounting Manager to Vice President and Treasurer of The Stackpole Corporation. Ms. Hunter holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Union College in Schenectady New York.

George Avgerinos, Ph.D. has served as our Senior Vice President, Biologics Operations since June 2013. Dr. Avgerinos joined us from AbbVie, Inc., where he was Vice President, HUMIRA® Manufacturing Sciences and External Partnerships. In his 22-year career at AbbVie, Inc., formerly Abbott Laboratories, formerly BASF Bioresearch Corporation (BASF), Dr. Avgerinos was responsible for many aspects of biologics development and operations. These included the HUMIRA® operations franchise, global biologics process and manufacturing sciences, biologics CMC, manufacturing operations, and third-party manufacturing. During his tenure, Dr. Avgerinos led and participated in the development of numerous clinical candidates which included the launch of HUMIRA®. He supported expansion of the supply chain to over $9.0 billion in annual global sales. Dr. Avgerinos’ efforts on HUMIRA® have been recognized with numerous awards, including the prestigious Abbott’s Chairman’s award in 2011. Dr. Avgerinos received a B.A. in Biophysics from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Biochemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Avgerinos also provides services for TG Therapeutics, Inc., a related party, pursuant to a shared services agreement.

Michael S. Weiss has served as our Executive Vice Chairman, Strategic Development since February 2014. He currently serves as a member of the board of directors of several of our partner companies, including Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CKPT) and Mustang Bio, Inc. (Nasdaq: MBIO). Mr. Weiss is currently the Executive Chairman of Mustang Bio, Inc. (where he served as interim CEO from March 2015 to April 2017) and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (where he served as interim CEO from August 2015 to October 2015). From March 2015 until February 2019, Mr. Weiss served on the board of Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATXI). Since December 2011, Mr. Weiss has served in multiple capacities at TG Therapeutics, Inc., a related party, and is currently its Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. In 1999, Mr. Weiss founded Access Oncology, which was later acquired by Keryx Biopharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: KERX) in 2004. Following the merger, Mr. Weiss remained as CEO of Keryx. He began his professional career as a lawyer with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. Mr. Weiss earned his B.S. in Finance from The University of Albany and his J.D. from Columbia Law School.

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, or the Exchange Act. The public may obtain these filings at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 or by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. 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 be obtained, free of charge, electronically through our website at www.fortressbiotech.com.

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk factors

Investing in our Common Stock, Series A Preferred Stock or any other type of equity or debt securities (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 partners and affiliates Checkpoint, Mustang, and Avenue 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 Checkpoint, Mustang or Avenue 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 partners and affiliates such that, if any of the negative outcomes associated with any such risk is experienced by one of our partners or affiliates, the value of Fortress’ holdings in such partner or affiliate (if any) may decline.

Risks Inherent in Drug Development

Most of our or our partner companies’ 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 take several 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 products, 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.

Table of Contents

The extensive regulation to which our product candidates are subject may be costly and time consuming, cause anticipated 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 Biologics License Application (“BLA”) or New Drug Application (“NDA”). The approval process is uncertain, expensive, often spans many years, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the products 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:

●

disagreement with the trial design or implementation of our clinical trials, including proper use of clinical trial methods and methods of data analysis;

●

an inability to establish sufficient data and information to demonstrate that a product candidate is safe and/or effective for an indication;

●

the FDA’s rejection of clinical data from trials conducted by individual investigators or in countries where the standard of care is potentially different from that of the United States;

●

the FDA’s determination that clinical trial results do not meet the statistical significance levels required for approval;

●

a disagreement by the applicable regulator regarding the interpretation of preclinical study or trial data;

●

determination by the FDA that our manufacturing processes or facilities or those of third-party manufacturers with which we or our collaborators contract for clinical supplies or plan to contract for commercial supplies, do not satisfactorily comply with CGMPs; or

●

a change to the FDA’s approval policies or interpretation of regulations rendering our clinical data, product characteristics, or benefit-risk profile insufficient or unfavorable for approval.

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 would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

Table of Contents

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:

●

obtaining regulatory approval to commence a clinical trial;

●

identifying, recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators;

●

reaching and maintaining agreements on acceptable terms with prospective clinical research organizations (“CROs”) and trial sites, the terms of which may be subject to extensive negotiation and modification from time to time and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

●

obtaining sufficient quantities of a product candidate for use in clinical trials;

●

obtaining IRB or ethics committee approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site;

●

developing and validating companion diagnostics on a timely basis, if required;

●

adding new clinical sites once a trial has begun;

●

the death, disability, departure or other change to the principal investigator or other staff overseeing the clinical trial at a given site;

●

identifying, recruiting and enrolling patients to participate in a clinical trial; or

●

retaining patients who participate in a clinical trial and replacing those who may withdraw due to adverse events from the therapy, insufficient efficacy, fatigue with the clinical trial process, personal issues, or other reasons.

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 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, 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.

Table of Contents

Suspensions or delays in the completion of clinical testing could result in increased costs and delay or prevent our ability to complete development of that product 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:

●

failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols;

●

inspection of the clinical trial operations or clinical trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold;

●

stopping rules contained in the protocol;

●

unforeseen safety issues or any determination that the clinical trial presents unacceptable health risks; and

●

lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

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:

●

capital resources;

●

development resources, including personnel and technology;

●

clinical trial experience;

●

regulatory experience;

Table of Contents

●

expertise in prosecution of intellectual property rights; and

●

manufacturing, distribution and sales and marketing capabilities.

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 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, 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.

Table of Contents

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 Capital restricts our and certain of our partner companies’ abilities to take certain actions.

At December 31, 2020, the total amount of debt outstanding, net of the debt discount was $51.7 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 August 27, 2020, we entered into a $60.0 million senior secured credit agreement with Oaktree Fund Administration, LLC and the lenders from time-to-time party thereto (collectively, “Oaktree”). The Oaktree credit agreement contains certain affirmative and negative covenants restricting our and certain of our partner companies’ abilities to take certain actions, especially as pertains indebtedness, liens, investments, affiliate transactions, acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, prepayment of other indebtedness, dividends and other distributions (subject in each case to exceptions). The Oaktree credit agreement also contains financial covenants obligating us to maintain a minimum liquidity amount and a minimum amount of revenue, in both cases subject to exceptions. The breach of any such provisions (even, potentially, in an immaterial manner) could result in an event of default under the Oaktree credit 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 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 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 continuing operations of approximately $103.0 million and $101.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. At December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $482.8 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 partners and affiliates 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:

●

one or more of our development-stage product candidates is approved for commercial sale and we decide to commercialize such product(s) ourselves, due to the need to establish the necessary commercial infrastructure to launch and commercialize this product candidate without substantial delays, including hiring sales and marketing personnel and contracting with third parties for manufacturing, testing, warehousing, distribution, cash collection and related commercial activities;

Table of Contents

●

we are required by the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority to perform studies in addition to those currently expected;

●

there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates;

●

we execute other collaborative, licensing or similar arrangements, depending on the timing of payments we may make or receive under these arrangements;

●

there are variations in the level of expenses related to our future development programs;

●

we become involved in any product liability or intellectual property infringement lawsuits; and

●

there are any regulatory developments affecting our competitors’ product candidates.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, 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:

●

obtain regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates, or any future product candidate that we may license or acquire in the future;

●

manufacture commercial quantities of one or more of our product candidates or any future product candidate, if approved, at acceptable cost levels; and

●

develop a commercial organization and the supporting infrastructure required to successfully market and sell one or more of our product candidates or any future product candidate, if approved.

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. 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 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 common stock and/or debt securities to decline.

Table of Contents

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, 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.

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 stock 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, 2020 and 2019 we incurred R&D expenses of approximately $61.3 million and $75.2 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 10-K. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue and achieve profitability, however, 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. 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 are 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, 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.

Table of Contents

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 preferred stock that is convertible into 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 Fortress 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 involve covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on 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.

Risks Pertaining to Our Existing Revenue Stream from Journey Medical Corporation

Future revenue based on sales of our dermatology products, especially Ximino, Targadox and Exelderm, 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 dermatology products through our partner company Journey Medical Corporation. Any setback that may occur with respect to such products, in particular Ximino, Targadox and Exelderm, could significantly impair our operating results and/or reduce our revenue and the market prices of our Securities. Setbacks for such products could include, but are not necessarily limited to, problems with shipping, distribution, demand, manufacturing, product safety, marketing, government regulation or reimbursement, licenses and approvals, intellectual property rights, competition with existing or new products, physician or patient acceptance of the products, as well as higher than expected total rebates, returns or recalls.

Also, the majority 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 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 PTO proceedings, if a generic ompany 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.

Table of Contents

Any disruptions to the capabilities, composition, size or existence of Journey’s sales force may have a significant adverse impact on our existing revenue stream. If we are unable to establish and/or maintain sales and marketing capabilities or fail to enter into agreements with third parties to market, distribute and sell products that may be successfully developed in the future, we may be unable to effectively market and sell such products and generate product revenue.

Journey’s sales force has been and is expected to continue to be an important contributor to its commercial success. Any disruptions to Journey’s relationship with such sales force or the third-party contractor through which they are engaged could materially adversely affect Journey’s product sales. Journey may from time-to-time acquire additional products with which its existing sales force has little familiarity (e.g., with respect to indications, product labels, dosages, formulations or delivery mechanisms), and there is no guarantee that Journey’s sales force will have success in marketing such new products in the near-term or ever.

Apart from Journey, we do not currently have the infrastructure for the sales, marketing and distribution of any of our product candidates, and we must build and maintain such infrastructures or make arrangements with third parties to perform these functions in order to commercialize any products that we may successfully develop. The establishment and development of a sales force, either by us or our partners, or the establishment of a contract sales force, to market any products for which we may 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 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.

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.

Reimbursement for our product 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 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.

Table of Contents

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:

●

a covered benefit under its health plan;

●

safe, effective and medically necessary;

●

appropriate for the specific patient;

●

cost-effective; and

●

experimental or investigational.

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 products 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.

Legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare systems of the United States and certain foreign countries could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products by revising the payment methodology for many products reimbursed by Medicare, resulting in lower rates of reimbursement for many types of drugs, and added a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program that involves commercial plans negotiating drug prices for their members. In addition, this law provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this law and future laws could decrease the coverage and price that we will receive for any approved products. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Therefore, any limitations in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in reductions in payments from private payors.

Since 2003, there have been several other legislative and regulatory changes to the coverage and reimbursement landscape for pharmaceuticals. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the “Affordable Care Act” or “ACA,” was enacted in 2010 and made significant changes to the United States’ healthcare system. The ACA and any revisions or replacements of that Act, any substitute legislation, and other changes in the law or regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Table of Contents

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

●

an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures, or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biological products apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;

●

an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13.0% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively;

●

expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the federal False Claims Act and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers and enhanced penalties for non-compliance;

●

a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;

●

extension of a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

●

expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for certain individuals with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;

●

expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Pricing Program;

●

new requirements under the federal Open Payments program and its implementing regulations;

●

a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians;

●

a new regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilar biological products, all of which will impact existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs; and

●

a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.

The Supreme Court upheld the ACA in the main challenge to the constitutionality of the law in 2012. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate and corresponding penalty was constitutional because it would be considered a tax by the federal government. The Supreme Court also upheld federal subsidies for purchasers of insurance through federally facilitated exchanges in a decision released in June 2015.

At the end of 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which repealed the penalty for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential health coverage as required by the ACA. Following this legislation, Texas and 19 other states filed a lawsuit alleging that the ACA is unconstitutional as the individual mandate was repealed, undermining the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s prior decision. On December 14, 2018, a Texas federal district court judge issued a ruling declaring that the ACA in its entirety is unconstitutional. Upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. However, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to conduct a more thorough assessment of the constitutionality of the entire ACA despite the individual mandate being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on appeal from the Fifth Circuit on March 2, 2020 and held oral arguments on November 10, 2020. While this lawsuit has no immediate legal effect on the ACA and its provisions, this lawsuit is ongoing and the outcome may have a significant impact on our business.

Table of Contents

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the “BBA,” which set government spending levels for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, revised certain provisions of the ACA. Specifically, beginning in 2019, the BBA increased manufacturer point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs in the Medicare Part D coverage gap from 50% to 70%, ultimately increasing the liability for brand drug manufacturers. Further, this mandatory manufacturer discount applied to biosimilars beginning in 2019.

The 116th Congress explored legislation intended to address the cost of prescription drugs. Notably, the major committees of jurisdiction in the Senate (Finance Committee, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Judiciary Committee), marked up legislation intended to address various elements of the prescription drug supply chain. Proposals include a significant overhaul of the Medicare Part D benefit design, addressing patent “loopholes”, and efforts to cap the increase in drug prices. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved drug-related legislation intended to increase transparency of drug prices and also curb anti-competitive behavior in the pharmaceutical supply chain. In addition, the House Ways & Means Committee approved legislation intended to improve drug price transparency, including for drug manufacturers to justify certain price increases. The 117^th Congress convened on January 3, 2021 and could reintroduce many of the bills targeting drug prices. While we cannot predict what proposals may ultimately become law, the elements under consideration could significantly change the landscape in which the pharmaceutical market operates.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) advanced the Lower Health Care Costs Act of 2019. Among other things, the bill is intended to reduce costs in the United States health sector. The bill revises certain requirements to expedite the approval of generics and biosimilars. It also limits prices that pharmacy benefit managers may charge health insurers or enrollees for prescription drugs. Although this bill still needs to pass the full Senate and House of Representatives, it is worth noting the wide-ranging effects it could have on the health care sector.

On December 12, 2019, the House of Representatives passed broad legislation (H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act) that would, among other provisions, require HHS to negotiate drug prices and impose price caps and restructure the Medicare Part D benefit, imposing more financial responsibility on certain drug manufacturers. Failure by a manufacturer to reach an agreement with HHS on the negotiated price could result in significant penalties for prescription drug manufacturers. In addition, S. 2543, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act would also, among other provisions, restructure the Medicare Part D benefit, but it would not authorize direct negotiation by the federal government. While we cannot predict what proposals may ultimately become law, the elements under consideration could significantly change the landscape in which the pharmaceutical market operates.

The Trump Administration took several regulatory steps to redirect ACA implementation. The HHS finalized a Medicare hospital payment reduction for Part B drugs acquired through the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Under the Trump Administration, HHS finalized several proposals aimed at lowering drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries and increasing price transparency. For example, the Trump Administration issued an interim final rule on November 27, 2020 implementing a “Most Favored Nation” payment model for Part B drugs that applies international reference pricing to determine reimbursement for certain drugs paid by Medicare Part B. The interim final rule was enjoined by federal courts prior to its implementation date of January 1, 2021, and the lawsuit is ongoing. In addition, HHS, in conjunction with the FDA, finalized four pharmaceutical importation pathways in September 2020: (1) regulations establishing importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada by wholesalers and pharmacists; (2) FDA guidance permitting manufacturers to import their own pharmaceuticals that were originally intended for marketing in other countries; (3) a request for proposals from private sector entities to import prescription drugs for personal use under existing statutory authority; and (4) a request for proposals from private sector entities to reimport insulin under existing statutory authority. Further, on November 11, 2020, the Trump Administration issued a final rule that changes the permissible structure of drug rebates and discounts between drug manufacturers and third-party payors (including pharmacy benefit managers that negotiate drug prices on behalf of such third-party payors). This final rule, often referred to as the “Rebate Rule,” could have significant direct and indirect impacts on drug pricing in both government and commercial markets. With respect to price transparency, the Trump Administration promulgated regulations that require hospitals and third-party payors to disclose prices of items and services, which may impact negotiated rates in the commercial market.

Table of Contents

On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Biden indicated support for several policies aimed at lowering drug prices, including government price negotiation, drug importation, international reference pricing, and price increase controls. The incoming Biden Administration may continue, modify, or repeal many of the drug pricing policies proposed and finalized by the Trump Administration. While we cannot predict which policies the Biden Administration may support and enforce, the policies finalized in the months prior to the beginning of Mr. Biden’s term, if continued, could significantly change the landscape in which the pharmaceutical market operates and significantly impact our ability to effectively market and sell our products.

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

●

the demand for any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval;

●

our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products;

●

our ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain profitability;

●

the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and

●

the availability of capital.

In addition, governments may impose price controls, which may adversely affect our future profitability. In January 2020, President Trump signed into law the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade deal into law. As enacted, there are no commitments with respect to biological product intellectual property rights or data protection, which may create an unfavorable environment across these three countries.

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

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

Table of Contents

Risks Pertaining to our Business Strategy, Structure and Organization

We have undergone, and are likely in the future to undergo, collaborations and/or divestitures with respect to certain of our assets and subsidiaries, some of which may be material and/or transformative, which could adversely affect

We have entered into several partnerships and/or contingent sales of our assets and subsidiaries, including an equity investment and contingent sale between Avenue and InvaGen, an equity investment and contingent option transaction between Caelum and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and a development funding and contingent asset purchase between Cyprium and Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. Each of these transactions has been time-consuming and has diverted management’s attention. As a result of these 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. For example, in connection with execution of the Stock Purchase and Merger Agreement between Avenue and InvaGen, dated as of November 12, 2018 (the “Avenue SPMA”), we signed a Restrictive Covenant Agreement, which prohibits us from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the business of hospital administered pain management anywhere in the world other than Canada, Central America or South America for a period of five years after the earlier of the termination of the Avenue SPMA or consummation of the Merger Transaction (as defined in the Avenue SPMA).

In addition, in connection with any transaction involving a (contingent or non-contingent) sale of one of our assets or subsidiaries, we may surrender our ability to realize long-term value from such asset or subsidiary, in the form of foregone 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 subsidiary is granted FDA approval for commercialization following the execution of documentation governing the sale by us of such asset or subsidiary, the transferee of such asset or subsidiary 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 subsidiaries, 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 common stock.

As a result of certain developments and assertions by its partner, InvaGen, Avenue may not consummate the second closing of its merger.

On November 12, 2018, Avenue entered into a Stock Purchase and Merger Agreement (the “Avenue SPMA”) with InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“InvaGen”), and Madison Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Merger Sub”), under which Avenue would be sold to InvaGen in a two-stage transaction. The first stage of the strategic transaction between InvaGen and Avenue closed in February 2019. InvaGen acquired approximately 5.8 million shares of Avenue’s common stock at $6.00 per share for total gross consideration of $35.0 million, representing a 33.3% stake in Avenue’s capital stock on a fully diluted basis. At the second stage closing, InvaGen would acquire the remaining shares of Avenue’s common stock, pursuant to a reverse triangular merger with Avenue remaining as the surviving entity.

Table of Contents

The second stage closing is subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions, including conditions pertaining to the FDA approval, labeling, scheduling and the absence of any Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy or similar restrictions in effect with respect to IV Tramadol, as well as the expiration of any waiting period applicable to the acquisition under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (“HSR”).

In October 2020, InvaGen communicated to Avenue that it believes a Material Adverse Effect (as defined in the Avenue SPMA) has occurred due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on potential commercialization and projected sales of IV Tramadol, which means it is possible InvaGen could attempt to avoid its obligation to consummate the second stage closing under the Avenue SPMA, terminate the Avenue SPMA, and/or pursue monetary claims against Avenue and/or Fortress. Avenue disagrees with InvaGen’s assertion that a Material Adverse Effect has occurred and has advised InvaGen of this position.

In February 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) accepted the submission of Avenue’s’ New Drug Application (“NDA”) for IV Tramadol for review and assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) date of October 10, 2020. In October 2020, Avenue announced that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA regarding Avenue’s NDA for IV Tramadol. The FDA held a Type A meeting with Avenue in November 2020 to discuss the issues outlined in the CRL. On February 12, 2021 Avenue resubmitted its NDA to the FDA for IV Tramadol. The NDA resubmission followed the receipt of the official minutes from Avenue’s Type A meeting with the FDA. The NDA resubmission included revised language relating to the proposed product label and a report relating to terminal sterilization validation. On February 26, 2021, Avenue received an acknowledgement letter from the FDA that Avenue’s resubmission of its NDA is a complete, class 1 response to the CRL, and a PDUFA goal date was set for April 12, 2021.

In connection with the resubmission of Avenue’s NDA, InvaGen communicated to Avenue that it believes the proposed label for IV Tramadol under certain circumstances would constitute a Material Adverse Effect on the purported basis that the proposed label for IV Tramadol would make the product commercially unviable, and in addition that the indiciation that the FDA approves may fail to satisfy a condition precedent to InvaGen’s obligation to consummate the second stage closing of the Avenue SPMA. Avenue has notified InvaGen that it disagrees with InvaGen’s assertions. Nevertheless, InvaGen may seek to avoid its obligation to consummate the second stage closing under the Avenue SPMA, terminate the Avenue SPMA, and/or pursue monetary claims against Avenue and/or Fortress.

Over the past several months, Avenue has communicated with InvaGen relating to InvaGen’s assertions. Nevertheless, InvaGen has communicated to Avenue its desire to consider all options on the proposed merger, including the option to not consummate the merger. This indicates that InvaGen may attempt to avoid its obligations under the Avenue SPMA to consummate the merger, terminate the Avenue SPMA, and/or pursue monetary claims against Avenue and/or Fortress. As a result, the possible timing and likelihood of the completion of the merger are uncertain, and, accordingly, there can be no assurance that such transaction will be completed on the expected terms, anticipated schedule, or at all. During the pendency of any dispute regarding these matters, Avenue may be, and so long as the Avenue SPMA remains in place Avenue will be, prohibited from engaging in a change-of-control transaction, selling its rights to IV Tramadol or effecting an equity or debt financing, in each case without the prior written consent of InvaGen.

If Avenue does not receive FDA approval for IV Tramadol by April 30, 2021, InvaGen will have the right to terminate the Avenue SPMA and will have no further obligations to consummate the second stage closing under the Avenue SPMA. In the event that InvaGen does not exercise its right to terminate the Avenue SPMA, certain restrictions relating to financings and strategic alternatives could exist through October 31, 2021, the time at which Avenue can terminate the Avenue SPMA. Regardless of whether the Avenue SPMA is terminated, InvaGen will retain certain rights pursuant to the Stockholder’s Agreement between Avenue and InvaGen. These rights exist as long as InvaGen maintains at least 75% of the Avenue common shares acquired in the first stage closing. The following are some of the actions that shall not be taken by Avenue without the prior written consent of InvaGen:

•

increase in authorized shares of Avenue’s capital stock;

•

any agreement or transaction that would adversely treat the holders of Avenue’s common shares as compared to the holders of Avenue’s Class A Preferred Shares;

Table of Contents

•

issuance of any shares of Avenue’s capital stock or any securities convertible into, or other rights to acquire, shares of Avenue’s capital stock (including options, warrants or bonds), except for issuances to Avenue’s officers for services performed;

•

any transfer or license of any asset for less than fair market value, as determined by a recognized independent valuation firm agreed upon by Avenue and Invagen; or

•

entry into any transaction or agreement with any affiliate of Avenue’s (including the Company or its Affiliates).

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 affiliated companies; we have also entered into certain arrangements with our subsidiaries and third parties pursuant to which a substantial number of shares of our common 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 common stock, based on the actions or inactions of our subsidiaries and/or affiliates.

We act, and are likely to continue acting, in as indemnitor of potential losses that may be experienced by one or more of our affiliated companies and/or their partners or investors. For instance, under that certain Indemnification Agreement, dated as of November 12, 2018 (the “Indemnification Agreement”), we indemnify InvaGen and its affiliates for losses they may sustain in connection with inaccuracies that may appear in the representations and warranties that Avenue made to InvaGen in the Avenue SPMA, as such representations and warranties were given as of the dates of signing and first closing, and as may be required to be given as of the second stage closing under the Avenue SPMA as well. The maximum amount of indemnification we may have to provide under the Indemnification Agreement is $35.0 million, and such obligation terminates upon the consummation of the Merger Transaction (as defined in the Avenue SPMA). In the event of payment by us of any such indemnification amount, we would be able to recoup such amounts (other than our pro rata share of the indemnification as a shareholder in Avenue) from the Merger Transaction proceeds, but if the Merger Transaction never occurs, we would have no means of recouping such previously-paid indemnification amounts. If we become obligated to pay all or a portion of such indemnification amounts (regardless of whether or not we are partially reimbursed out of the proceeds of the Merger Transaction), our business and the market value of our common stock and/or debt securities may be materially adversely impacted.

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:

●

exposure to unknown liabilities;

●

disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention to develop acquired products or technologies;

●

difficulty or inability to secure financing to fund development activities for such acquired or in-licensed technologies in the current economic environment;

●

incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of securities to pay for acquisitions;

●

higher than expected acquisition and integration costs;

●

increased amortization expenses;


		Page

PART I		6
Item 1.	Business.	6
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	22
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	63
Item 2.	Properties	63
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	63
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	64

PART II		64
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	64
Item 6.	Selected Consolidated Financial Data	65
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.	65
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.	79
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.	79
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.	79
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures.	80
Item 9B.	Other Information	81

PART III		81
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	81
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	81
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	81
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	81
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	81

PART IV		82
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.	82
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary.	85