Scilex Holding Co 10-K

Item 1. Business. The Company We are an innovative revenue-generating company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing non-opioid pain management products for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. We target indications with high unmet needs and large market opportunities with non-opioid therapies for the treatment of patients with acute and chronic pain and are dedicated to advancing and improving patient outcomes. Our commercial products are: (i) ZTlido Ò (lidocaine topical system) 1.8%, a prescription lidocaine topical product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia (“PHN”), which is a form of post-shingles nerve pain; (ii) ELYXYB®, a potential first-line treatment and the only FDA-approved, ready-to-use oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine, with or without aura, in adults; and (iii) GLOPERBA®, the first and only liquid oral version of the anti-gout medicine colchicine indicated for the prophylaxis of painful gout flares in adults, which launched in June 2024. In addition, we have three product candidates: (i) SP-102 (10 mg, dexamethasone sodium phosphate viscous gel) (“SEMDEXA Ô ”), a novel, viscous gel formulation of a widely used corticosteroid for epidural injections to treat lumbosacral radicular pain, or sciatica for which we have completed a Phase 3 study; (ii) SP-103 (lidocaine topical system) 5.4% (“SP-103”), a next-generation, triple-strength formulation of ZTlido, for the treatment of acute pain and for which we have completed a Phase 2 trial in acute low back pain (“LBP”); and (iii) SP-104 (4.5 mg, low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules) (“SP-104”), a novel low-dose delayed-release naltrexone hydrochloride being developed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, for which Phase 1 trials were completed. We believe our currently approved products and future product candidates, if approved by the FDA, could uniquely address what we believe are the significant unmet needs of the targeted populations and become the preferred treatment option for their respective indications. Our guiding principle has always been and remains a patient-first approach, which drives our mission to meet the increasing global demand for more effective and safer non-opioid pain management solutions. Through rigorous research and development, we believe we are on the cusp of establishing Scilex as the preeminent name in commercial non-opioid pain management, specifically targeting the unmet needs in both acute and chronic pain sectors with our innovative and leading therapies. We believe that we have not only responded to the global demand for safer, more effective pain relief solutions, but also made substantial progress in demonstrating the rapid onset and enhanced safety of our products. Our Products We launched our first commercial product, ZTlido Ò (lidocaine topical system) 1.8% in October 2018. ZTlido possesses novel delivery and adhesion technology designed to address many of the limitations of current prescription lidocaine patches by providing significantly improved adhesion and continuous pain relief throughout the 12-hour administration period. ZTlido is a single-layer, drug-in-adhesive topical delivery system comprised of an adhesive material containing 36 mg lidocaine, which is applied to a pliable nonwoven cloth backing and covered with a polyethylene terephthalate film release liner. ZTlido is commercially manufactured for us by Oishi Koseido Co., Ltd. (“Oishi”) in Japan. We license the rights to ZTlido from and rely exclusively on Oishi and Itochu Chemical Frontier Corporation (“Itochu”) pursuant to the Product Development Agreement (the “Product Development Agreement”) dated as of May 11, 2011, by and among Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary (“Scilex Pharma”), Oishi and Itochu, and the Commercial Supply Agreement (the “Commercial Supply Agreement”), dated as of February 16, 2017, by and among Scilex Pharma, Oishi and Itochu. We have exclusive worldwide rights to Oishi’s proprietary formulation and manufacturing technologies except with respect to Japan. In 2024, there were more than 206 million prescription lidocaine patches sold in the United States, according to Symphony Healthcare. We launched our second commercial product, ELYXYB Ò in April 2023. We acquired the rights to certain patents, trademarks, regulatory approvals, data, contracts, and other rights related to ELYXYB Ò (celecoxib oral solution) and the commercialization thereof in the United States and Canada from BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. and Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. in February 2023. ELYXYB Ò is a potential first-line treatment and the only FDA-approved, ready-to-use oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine, with or without aura, in adults. We filed a New Drug Submission to Health Canada’s Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate, Bureau of Cardiology, Allergy and Neurological Sciences for the approval of ELYXYB® for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in Canada. We launched our third commercial product, GLOPERBA, in June 2024. We acquired certain rights to GLOPERBA and the exclusive license to use the trademark “GLOPERBA®”, pursuant to a License and Commercialization Agreement we entered into with RxOmeg Therapeutics LLC (a/k/a Romeg Therapeutics, LLC) (“Romeg”), dated as of June 14, 2022, which agreement was subsequently amended on January 16, 2025 (such agreement, as so amended, the “Romeg License Agreement”). GLOPERBA is an FDA-approved, liquid, oral medication for the treatment of gout in adults. Gout is a painful arthritic disorder affecting an estimated 9.2 million people in the United 3 States. Gout pain can be excruciating and is a form of inflammatory arthritis that develops in some people who have high levels of uric acid in their blood. It can cause sudden severe episodes of pain and can be disabling with tenderness, warmth and swelling. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine and corticosteroids are used a majority of time as the first line to treat acute gout. The U.S. is observed to have a high prevalence of gout, owing to lifestyle issues such as high alcohol intake, obesity, and smoking. We commercialized GLOPERBA in June 2024 and believe we are well positioned to market and distribute the product. We have a direct distribution network to national and regional wholesalers and pharmacies throughout the U.S. For more information, please see the section titled “ Business — Material Agreements — Romeg License and Commercialization Agreement. ” Our Product Candidates We acquired SP-102 from Semnur Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Semnur”) in March 2019 and are developing SP-102 to be an injectable viscous gel formulation of a widely used corticosteroid designed to address the serious risks posed by off-label epidural steroid injections (“ESI”), which are administered over 12 million times annually in the United States. SEMDEXA™ has been granted fast track designation by the FDA and, if approved, could become the only FDA-approved ESI for the treatment of sciatica. According to a report by Decision Resources Group, it was estimated that over 4.8 million patients would suffer from sciatica in the United States in 2022. We received our SP-103 Phase 2 top-line results in August 2023 and the trial achieved its objectives characterizing safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of SP-103 in acute LBP associated with muscle spasms. SP-103 was safe and well tolerated. Increase of lidocaine load in topical system by three times, compared with approved ZTlido, 5.4% vs. 1.8%, did not result in signs of systemic toxicity or increased application site reactions with daily applications over one month treatment. SP-103 received FDA Fast Track status in LBP. We will continue to analyze the SP-103 Phase 2 trial data along with an investigator study of ZTlido in patients with chronic neck pain completed in the second half of 2023, which also has shown promising top-line efficacy and safety results. SP-103, if approved, could become the first FDA-approved lidocaine topical product for the treatment of acute pain. We are developing SP-104 as a novel delayed-release formulation of low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride for the treatment of fibromyalgia, which remains a largely unmet medical need given the low response rates of commercially available therapies. Naltrexone is routinely used off-label to treat fibromyalgia. There are no low-dose formulations commercially available in the United States. Our patented formulation is designed to overcome undesirable effects of immediate release naltrexone, such as hyperalgesia, dysphoria, nausea, anxiety and insomnia. We are focused on identifying treatment options for pain management with established mechanisms that have deficiencies in safety, efficacy or patient experience. We believe this approach allows us to potentially leverage the regulatory approval pathway available under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for each of our product candidates. The following chart illustrates completed and anticipated milestones for our current commercial products and novel product candidates. Our Strategy Our vision is to become the leading pain management company delivering novel non-opioid and non-addictive treatments to provide safe, effective and durable relief of multiple pain conditions. To accomplish this, the principal elements of our strategy are the following: • Maximize the commercial potential of ZTlido ® . We have assembled an integrated commercial organization using a dedicated sales force and sales management team, marketing and managed care capabilities to support continued 4 uptake of ZTlido. We leverage a sales force of over 70 people, targeting over 10,000 primary care physicians, pain specialists, neurologists, rheumatologist, and palliative care physicians who we believe treat the majority of PHN patients. Additionally, we are utilizing direct-to-patient marketing strategies to expand awareness and utilization of ZTlido. Our managed healthcare account executives have extensive experience in negotiating contracts and have already achieved significant uptake by adding ZTlido to key formularies such as CVS Caremark/Aetna Commercial, Cigna HealthCare (commercial and Medicare plans), Express Scripts (commercial), United Healthcare Commercial, Optum Rx Select Commercial, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (“BCBS”), BCBS Louisiana and Kansas, Lifetime/Excellus BCBS, MedImpact, CareFirst, Elixir Commercial and Medicaid in California, Florida, Idaho, and North Dakota. • Commercialize and successfully continue launch of ELYXYB ® for migraine in the U.S. We will utilize our current commercial infrastructure comprised of our sales, marketing and managed health care functions to promote ELYXYB for acute migraine to healthcare providers (“HCPs”) in the U.S. market. There is a good degree of overlap between the current Scilex sales force HCP targets and HCPs who prescribe medications for acute migraine, allowing for efficient dual promotion of ELYXYB and ZTlido. The principal elements of the ELYXYB strategy are the following: o Educate the market on the need for and value of a novel and differentiated option for the treatment of acute migraine, where a high degree of unmet medical need already exists. We will leverage our in-person sales field forces, medical affairs teams, and omni-channel HCP engagement campaigns to drive awareness of ELYXYB features and benefits. o Broaden access to ELYXYB. Our managed healthcare account executives will negotiate contracts with key payer and pharmacy stakeholders to achieve uptake to key formularies. • Commercialize and successfully continue launch of GLOPERBA ® for gout in the U.S. We will utilize our current commercial infrastructure comprised of our sales, marketing, and managed health care functions to promote GLOPERBA® for gout to approximately 3,000 HCPs in the U.S. market. We anticipate a good degree of overlap between the current HCPs that we target and HCPs who prescribe colchicine for gout, allowing for efficient dual promotion of GLOPERBA and ZTlido. The principal elements of the GLOPERBA strategy are as follows: o Educate the market on the need for and value of simplified and precise colchicine dose adjustments to allow individualized, patient-by-patient therapy. Scilex will leverage its in-person sales forces, medical affairs teams, and omni-channel HCP engagement campaigns to drive awareness of GLOPERBA’s features and benefits. In addition, target providers, rheumatologists and primary care physicians treating various comorbidities, will be provided with tools to help them identify and prescribe GLOPERBA to appropriate patients. o Increase access to GLOPERBA for subsets of patients in prophylactic treatment of gout, specifically those with comorbidities and GI intolerance. Our managed healthcare account executives will negotiate contracts with key payer and pharmacy customers to achieve uptake of key formularies. • Develop and commercialize SEMDEXA TM as a novel epidural injection for the first approved treatment of sciatica. We are developing SEMDEXA to address the limitations associated with the available corticosteroid epidural injectable products that are used off-label. Many of these products contain potentially neurotoxic preservatives and particulates, and are administered over 12 million times annually despite a warning on the label of serious neurologic complications, including loss of vision, stroke, paralysis and death. These products carry warnings required by the FDA that the safety and efficacy of epidural administration has not been established. SEMDEXA has received fast track designation from the FDA and, if approved, could become the first FDA-approved epidural steroid product with long-term patent protection, which we also believe would create significant barriers to entry. Although such designation has been granted, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review process and such designation does not increase the likelihood that SEMDEXA will receive marketing approval. Due to the novelty of our formulation as well as the associated patents and trade secrets, future potential competitors could be required to conduct extensive preclinical studies and costly comparative clinical trials. A full 6-month data analysis was completed in February 2022 and we have completed a pivotal Phase 3 study with final results received in March 2022, which results reflect achievement of primary and secondary endpoints. We have extensive clinical and pre-clinical data (including those obtained from multiple Phase 2 clinical trials) with the novel viscous gel formulation of SP-102. We also presented the pivotal Phase 3 trial results at the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians annual meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada in May 2022. 5 • Pursue clinical development of SP-103 for the first approved topical treatment in patients with acute pain. We are developing SP-103 as a triple-strength lidocaine topical system for the treatment of acute pain, to be used where we believe a high-dose strength and superior adhesive qualities of a topical system may provide a greater therapeutic benefit than currently available therapies. SP-103 is designed to use ZTlido’s delivery and adhesion technology to deliver a dose of lidocaine that is three times higher than any other approved lidocaine topical products. We received our SP-103 Phase 2 top-line results in August 2023 and the trial achieved its objectives characterizing safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of SP-103 in acute LBP associated with muscle spasms. SP-103 was safe and well tolerated. The increase of lidocaine load in topical system by three times, compared with approved ZTlido, 5.4% vs. 1.8%, did not result in signs of systemic toxicity or increased application site reactions with daily applications over one month treatment. SP-103 received FDA Fast Track status in LBP. We will continue to analyze the SP-103 Phase 2 trial data along with an investigator study of ZTlido in patients with chronic neck pain completed in the second half of 2023, which also has shown promising top-line efficacy and safety results. SP-103, if approved, could become the first FDA-approved lidocaine topical product for the treatment of acute pain. • Pursue clinical development of SP-104 for the treatment of fibromyalgia, which has very few approved therapies that are marginally effective and have unpleasant side-effects. We are developing SP-104 for fibromyalgia. Low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules are routinely used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and other chronic pain conditions such as complex regional pain. SP-104 addresses the shortcomings of using the high-dose commercial products and pharmacy-compounded products by delivering a low-dose of naltrexone hydrochloride (approximately 11 times less than the commercial product) in a delayed-release formulation that bypasses the stomach and releases the drug in the gut (upper intestine). These product characteristics mitigate against the known safety issues associated with the high-dose commercial products and immediate release pharmacy-compounded products, and the overall reliability issues associated with pharmacy-compounded products. SP-104 has completed two Phase 1 studies to characterize the pharmacokinetics (“PK”) and safety of the product. • Expand our product portfolio by developing or acquiring non-opioid assets that leverage our novel delivery and adhesion technologies and our existing commercial infrastructure. We are continuously evaluating opportunities to leverage our research and development experience to develop non-opioid therapeutics for pain management indications that are not adequately served with existing treatment options. We also seek to in-license or acquire non-opioid therapeutics that can both complement our existing product portfolio and benefit from our existing commercial infrastructure. In evaluating marketed and clinical-stage expansion opportunities, we intend to pursue therapeutics that address markets served by our established target physician audience and that can be commercialized by our existing sales force. • Leverage our management team’s experience to further develop and commercialize its current and future product portfolio. Our management team has held senior positions at leading biopharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (“Teva”), Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Cephalon, Inc., Roche AG, PDL BioPharma, Inc., Xenoport, Inc. and Chiron Corp. Our team has substantial experience in rapidly progressing new drugs to clinical proof of concept, completing successful pivotal registration programs and successfully commercializing products. We believe that our innovative non-opioid product portfolio has the potential to provide effective pain management therapies that can have a transformative impact on patients’ lives. Our Management Team We have assembled a management team of experienced biopharma industry veterans, who have deep scientific, business and leadership expertise in the pharmaceutical industry, as well as strong transactional and business development track records. Our management team is led by our Chief Executive Officer and President, Jaisim Shah, with strategic guidance from our Executive Chairperson, Henry Ji, Ph.D. They collectively have over 60 years of global biopharmaceutical and biotechnology experience. Jaisim Shah has over 30 years of industry success in leading product development and commercializing innovative therapies and creating companies, with documented success in development and commercialization of some of today’s most recognized pharmaceutical brands. He is a seasoned life science executive and board director with extensive accomplishments at Scilex, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, PDL Biopharma, Pfizer, and start-ups such as Elevation. Mr. Shah has served as our Chief Executive Officer and President and as a member of our board of directors since the closing of the business combination in November 2022. He has also served as Chief Executive Officer and President of Legacy Scilex and Scilex Pharma since March 2019 and as a member of the board of directors of Scilex 6 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary (“Scilex Pharma”), since November 2016. Mr. Shah has served as Chief Executive Officer and President of Semnur Pharmaceuticals since its inception in 2013. Mr. Shah served as Chief Business Officer of Elevation Pharmaceuticals where he focused on financing, business strategy, mergers and acquisitions, and business development. He led the sale of Elevation to Sunovion Pharmaceuticals in 2012. At Facet Biotech and PDL BioPharma, he served from 2000 to 2009 as Chief Business Officer and also held the position of senior vice president of marketing and medical affairs. During this time, he completed numerous licensing/partnering and strategic transactions including with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka, and Biogen Idec. His leadership in marketing and portfolio management, including leading the commercial enterprise, helped the company make large improvements to meet its profitability potential. At Bristol-Myers Squibb, as vice president of global marketing from 1997 to 2000, Mr. Shah received the “Presidents Award” for completing one of the most significant collaborations in the company’s history. He has played a key role in the formulation of long-range plans and pre-launch and launch strategies for brands such as Abilify®, Pegasys®, and Rituxan/MabThera®, each of which have generated well over $1 billion in sales. Dr. Henry Ji is the holder of several issued and pending patents in the life science research field. Our Chief Financial Officer, Stephen Ma, has more than 15 years of finance and operational expertise across pharmaceuticals and venture-backed biotechnology companies. Our research efforts are guided by highly experienced scientists and experts. Our management team contributes a diverse range of experiences from leading biopharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Cephalon, Inc., Roche AG, PDL BioPharma, Inc., Xenoport, Inc. and Chiron Corp. With this leadership, we believe we are well positioned to achieve our vision of becoming the leading pain management company delivering novel non-opioid and non-addictive treatments aiming to provide safe, effective and durable relief of multiple pain conditions. In addition, we are supported by impressive teams across all levels of the organization. We hire and develop world-class talent from diverse backgrounds in biopharma, academia, technology and finance to ensure we have all of the capabilities to design and deliver first-class pain management therapies. Our Product Portfolio ZTlido Our marketed product, ZTlido, is a lidocaine topical system approved for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN. ZTlido was strategically designed to address the limitations of current prescription lidocaine patches by providing significantly improved adhesion and continuous pain relief throughout the 12-hour administration period. We launched ZTlido in October 2018 with an integrated commercial organization and we believe its differentiated therapeutic profile, combined with our competitive pricing strategy and our active direct marketing efforts have driven, and will continue to drive, accelerated sales growth and increased market uptake. Prescription Lidocaine Patch Market Overview Prescription lidocaine patches are approved by the FDA as a local anesthetic and are generally used as a first-line treatment for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN. PHN is a chronic neuropathic pain syndrome that results as a complication following an infection of herpes zoster, also known as shingles. Herpes zoster symptoms resolve after a few weeks, but the pain caused by the nerve injury and surrounding the affected area can persist for months and sometimes years. According to Evaluate Ltd., there were over 3.5 million people living with PHN conditions in the United States in 2021. Lidocaine patches have also been used in patients with other types of pain, such as diabetic neuropathy, osteoarthritis and pain associated with surgery, cancer or trauma, and often in patients with LBP. In 2024, there were more than 206 million prescription lidocaine patches sold in the United States, according to Symphony Healthcare. Of this number of prescriptions, there are only six main lidocaine patch manufacturers, which accounted for approximately 90% of the total prescriptions, according to Symphony Healthcare. We believe that the PHN market will continue to expand with the introduction of our lidocaine topical system, ZTlido, which is supported by our commercial organization, by prescribing trends away from opioid use, and by continued growth in the population of patients aged 45 years and older who are at greater risk of suffering from PHN. Unlike Lidoderm, the FDA has not determined that any other products are therapeutically equivalent to ZTlido, and accordingly, a prescription for ZTlido may not be able to be substituted by a generic product. Current Treatment Landscape and Limitations of Existing Treatments The recommended first-line treatment for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN includes topical lidocaine, gabapentinoids (which have been associated with the potential for abuse as well as numerous adverse events), antidepressants and a multi-modal approach. Topical lidocaine and gabapentinoids are preferred for combination therapies due to their low propensity for drug-to-drug interactions. For example, an eight-week combination use with pregabalin (Lyrica) has been proven to reduce pain in half for patients who had inadequate relief on monotherapy, despite titration of pregabalin to effect. This efficacy boost was achieved without tolerability issues or adding to side effects. 7 A survey analyzing treatment patterns for neuropathic pain associated with PHN found that recommended first-line therapeutics were used in only 29% of patients examined from 2010 to 2014, while the remaining patients were started on various off-label treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDS”) and opioids. These drugs can have adverse effects, especially on elderly patients, which represent the majority of PHN patients. For example, opioids carry a well-characterized risk of abuse and misuse and the potential for serious side effects, such as respiratory depression, constipation and others, including death. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 75% of the 100,306 drug overdose deaths during the 12-month period ending in April 2021 involved opioids. Similarly, tricyclic antidepressants, which can be effective in managing the neuropathic pain associated with PHN, can result in significant systemic side effects and cardiotoxicity, posing risks to the elderly and patients with heart disease, epilepsy or glaucoma. These side effects make topical lidocaine products an attractive first-line treatment option from a safety perspective. The safety of lidocaine patches is well supported in medical literature. Unlike transdermal medications that are designed to achieve systemic drug levels via absorption through the skin or mucosal membrane, leading to effects away from the application site, topical lidocaine has a local effect at the site of application. Because drug application is localized to the immediate area surrounding the patch, systemic absorption from a topical patch is low, reducing the risk of systemic side effects and lowering the potential for drug interactions relative to other systemic pharmacologic therapies. Due to the low systemic exposure and minimal systemic side effects reported in clinical trials, we believe a topical lidocaine patch is well suited for patients being treated with multiple medications or at a higher risk of side effects, including the elderly or those with chronic conditions. As a localized treatment, lidocaine patches have been used concomitantly with other medications in patients for whom monotherapy is inadequate. Furthermore, we believe medication administered topically rather than orally can improve patient compliance. While lidocaine patches have certain advantages over the treatment alternatives discussed above, certain patches have limitations that may impact efficacy. For example, poor adhesion of the patch is a leading problem for topical lidocaine patches cited in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (“FAERS”). Because the drug is incorporated in the adhesive for these products, patches must maintain adhesion or risk compromising the ability to deliver their full drug dose. As a result, establishing strong adhesion is a key factor for patient compliance and satisfaction. In draft guidance issued in July 2021, the FDA recommended that developers of topical and transdermal delivery systems (“TDSs”) conduct studies to characterize the adhesion performance of the product with suggested data requirements. Likewise, the FDA issued a draft guidance in October 2018 outlining the adhesion data requirements for generic TDSs. This guidance, along with Scilex’s past experience with regulatory agencies, shows the FDA’s interest and the importance of adhesion performance of these products. There are also dermal safety requirements that force developers to carefully balance adhesion performance against dermal safety. ZTlido is the first TDS product approved by the FDA that was able to demonstrate the targeted adhesion performance with an overall benign dermal safety profile. The following figure depicts data derived from FAERS as of December 31, 2023: For many of the competing lidocaine patches, a common drawback is the usage of hydrogel technology that limits the overall pharmaceutical efficiency of the product, requiring more total drug to be loaded into the patch to deliver a sufficient amount of drug to achieve a therapeutic effect. For example, Lidoderm has a drug load of 700 mg drug but only delivers 3± 2% of that drug load. Consequently, adhesive thickness must be increased in order to have a drug load sufficient to deliver a therapeutic dose of drug to the skin. As adhesive thickness increases, the product’s pliability can be compromised to the extent that the patch loses adhesion as the skin 8 moves and wrinkles through normal patient activity. The weight of the hydrogel patches (largely due to high water content) further contributes to the challenge in maintaining adhesion. The greater drug load also poses a risk of accidental exposure. For example, with a bioavailability of 3 ± 2% of the 700 mg drug load for Lidoderm, there is over 650 mg of drug remaining on the patch at the end of the 12-hour administration period, as captured in a bolded warning on the product label. If improperly disposed of, the residual drug poses the potential risk to children, pets and others of accidental exposure to a toxic amount of lidocaine, although we believe the risk with this formulation has not been evaluated. In addition to prescription lidocaine patches, there are commercially-available OTC topical lidocaine products in the market, but none of these OTC products have been reviewed or approved by the FDA. Notably in 2003, the FDA proposed amending the tentative final monograph for OTC external analgesic drug products to clarify the status of patches (and poultices and plasters), noting that the dosage forms had not been determined to be generally recognized as safe and effective for any analgesia at that time. Therefore, the FDA would likely not consider these OTC products to be compliant with the monograph and do not have legal marketing status. Our Solution Our novel adhesion and delivery technology provides significantly improved adhesion compared to Lidoderm, manufactured by Endo Pharmaceuticals, and generic alternatives marketed by Mylan N.V. (“Mylan”), while providing bioequivalent delivery of lidocaine via an efficient drug delivery system. Our product is lighter, thinner and provides for a better patient experience without compromise to dermal safety and with no presentation of dermal sensitization. Below is a comparison of the key advantages of ZTlido to Lidoderm and generic lidocaine patches manufactured by Teva and by Mylan. Key Advantages of ZTlido vs. Lidoderm and Associated Generics Note: DIA = Drug-in-adhesive * Source: A Scilex-sponsored head-to-head comparative adhesion study (SCI-LIDO-ADH-003) ZTlido has been strategically designed to address poor adhesion, a leading complaint associated with other currently marketed topical lidocaine products. ZTlido uses an advanced hot-melt technology, which uses premixing and hot-melt mixing of various excipients and lidocaine, followed by current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) compliant coating, lining, cutting and filling processes. In clinical studies, the technology provided significantly improved adhesion over Lidoderm ® (a branded, prescription 5% lidocaine patch 9 product) (“Lidoderm”) and Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch at 12 hours after application. In a head-to-head study of 44 subjects, ZTlido showed statistically significant adhesion at all-time points compared to Lidoderm. Further, ZTlido maintained greater than 90% mean adhesion over the labeled 12-hour administration period while Lidoderm fell below this benchmark within 3 hours. ZTlido also showed superior adhesion when compared to Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch. In this head-to-head study, ZTlido maintained greater than 90% mean adhesion throughout the labeled 12-hour administration period, while Mylan’s generic product had a mean adhesion score of only 80% immediately after application, which progressively worsened over time. The formulation components are also carefully selected to achieve the target adhesion profile without creating dermal sensitization and maintaining a benign irritation profile. In two separate studies, adhesion performance of ZTlido was compared to Lidoderm (with 44 subjects) and to Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch (with 24 subjects), as depicted in the diagrams below. Both studies were performed with healthy volunteers using a standard clinical adhesion protocol where adhesion could not be enhanced (i.e., no reinforcement, pressing or reattaching). The level of adhesion was measured immediately after application (Time 0), and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 hours after application. ZTlido was the only lidocaine product to achieve over 90% adhesion over 12 hours after application in these studies. Maintaining 90% adhesion was a requirement for ZTlido’s NDA approval. The proprietary adhesive system utilized for ZTlido allows for a more efficient delivery of the drug from the patch to the skin. This was supported by a clinical study in which ZTlido achieved a bioequivalent dose of lidocaine while using a reduced drug load (36 mg for ZTlido versus 700 mg for Lidoderm). The drug delivery efficiency of ZTlido lessens the danger of accidental exposure. After 12 hours after application, ZTlido contains approximately 18 mg of residual lidocaine. In comparison, each Lidoderm patch leaves over 650 mg in the patch at the end of the 12-hour administration period. If improperly disposed of, the residual drug poses a risk of accidental exposure to a toxic amount of lidocaine to children, pets and others, although the risk with this formulation has not been evaluated. The drug delivery efficiency of ZTlido also enables it to be manufactured as a thinner product relative to Lidoderm and Teva’s generic lidocaine patch. We strategically leveraged this property of ZTlido by utilizing a thin patch design with a nonwoven backing cloth that allows for better adhesion of the product. The improved adhesion performance, thinner profile and incorporation of a flexible backing material allows for a product that maintains contact with the skin in contoured areas of the body when encountering torsional strains arising from normal body movements and during contact with clothing and bedding. While Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch is also thinner than Lidoderm, it incorporates a film backing material that makes the product inflexible with body movements, contributing to its rapid loss in adhesion. The adhesion profile of ZTlido allows the product to be used under moderate exercise conditions (tested in 4 sessions of 30-minutes of stationary bike exercise, cumulatively 2 hours) as captured in the ZTlido label. No ZTlido patches fell off during the entire 12-hour administration period. Lidoderm and the associated generics have not produced any public data on the use of their products by active pain patients under such conditions. ZTlido is also labeled to allow patients to shower and bathe while wearing the patch, which is supported by an adhesion or PK study showing that, while some degree of lifting is observed in these environments, the patches were able to be pressed back down or reattached in the cases where the product completely detached, with no clinically meaningful change in PK. In contrast, Lidoderm and the associated generics are labeled with the effects of water exposure being unknown. Although ZTlido, Lidoderm and the associated generics are all labeled to not be used with heat (e.g., heating pad or blanket), the FDA-approved ZTlido label states that users may apply ZTlido to a treatment site after moderate heat exposure, such as after 15 minutes of 10 heating pad use on a medium setting. This authorized use of ZTlido is of value as heat therapy is widely used in treating pain. In contrast, Lidoderm and the associated generics are not labeled for use with heat. We believe ZTlido has other favorable features compared to Lidoderm and associated generic lidocaine patches such as the inclusion of a perforated release liner and the absence of cold flow. The perforated release liner allows for easier removal of the liner before application, which we believe provides convenience to patients who have dexterity challenges. In contrast, Lidoderm and generic lidocaine patches incorporate a single-sheet release liner, requiring patients to pick at the corners and edges to breach and remove before application. Cold flow is the propensity of the adhesive to migrate from the edges of the product under normal conditions, either in the product envelope or while on the skin. This can lead to difficulties in removing the product from the envelope and/or movement of the product, while on the skin, away from the intended administration site. We launched ZTlido in October 2018 with support from an integrated commercial organization using a dedicated sales force and sales management, marketing and managed care capabilities. We market ZTlido through a dedicated sales force of approximately 65 people, targeting over 10,000 primary care physicians, pain specialists, neurologists and palliative care physicians who we believe treat the majority of PHN patients. We are utilizing a multi-channel marketing strategy to expand awareness and utilization of ZTlido. Our managed healthcare account executives have achieved success in adding ZTlido to key formularies, including CVS Caremark/Aetna Commercial, Cigna HealthCare (commercial and Medicare plans), Express Scripts (commercial and most Medicare plans), United Healthcare Commercial, Optum Rx Select Commercial, Anthem BCBS, BCBS Louisiana and Kansas, Lifetime/Excellus BCBS, MedImpact, CareFirst, Elixir Commercial and Medicaid in California, Florida, Idaho, and North Dakota. We believe the benefits of ZTlido, combined with our competitive pricing strategy and our active direct marketing efforts, have driven, and will continue to drive, accelerated sales growth and increased market uptake. We plan to support several investigator-initiated research studies to explore the clinical benefits of using ZTlido in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, neck pain, intercostal neuralgia and other possible indications. SP-102 (SEMDEXA) SP-102 (SEMDEXA) is a pivotal Phase 3, novel, injectable viscous gel formulation of a widely used corticosteroid for epidural injections to treat sciatica. No ESIs are currently approved by the FDA. Sciatica Market Overview A particularly debilitating complication of back pathology is sciatica, which is a condition caused by mechanical compression of the nerve root, or by the effects of inflammatory mediators arising from a degenerative disc that results in inflammation and damage to the nerve roots. This nerve root compression in the lumbar segment of the spine causes shock-like or burning LBP combined with pain radiating down along the sciatic nerve through the buttocks and down one leg, sometimes reaching the foot. This often severe and debilitating leg pain is usually associated with symptoms of neuropathy-like numbness and tingling. The estimated lifetime incidence of sciatica ranges from 13% to 40% of the U.S. population, and about one-third of these cases will develop symptoms lasting over a year. According to a report by Decision Resources Group, it was estimated that over 4.8 million patients would suffer from sciatica in the United States in 2024. Current Treatment Landscape and Limitations of Existing Treatments As the U.S. population ages, the incidence of sciatica and the need for interventions are expected to continue to increase. For example, from 2000 to 2018, ESIs in Medicare beneficiaries increased by more than 125%. Although there are numerous etiologies of sciatica, and therapies may differ based on the etiology, pain management interventions for sciatica are usually multi-modal. Among the pain management interventions, ESI is considered to be efficacious and has been widely used by physicians across multiple specialties, including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation and pain medicine. However, there is no ESI therapy approved by the FDA for sciatica to date, and particulate formulations of glucocorticoids have been associated with severe adverse events. Patients with sciatica have a wide range of invasive and non-invasive treatment options. Surgical intervention options include vertebroplasty, spinal laminectomy, discectomy, microdiscectomy, foraminotomy, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, nucleoplasty, radiofrequency denervation, spinal fusion and artificial disc replacement. These options are generally the last line of treatment because they can result in prolonged recovery time, may not be successful in reducing pain or addressing the underlying cause, and may result in permanent loss of flexibility. For these reasons, less invasive interventions are usually implemented first. Less invasive interventions may include (i) nonpharmacological therapies such as physical therapy, stretching exercises, spinal manipulations or chiropractic therapy, traction, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and biofeedback; (ii) oral pharmaceutical therapies such as 11 NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, opiates, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants; and (iii) injectable pharmaceutical therapies such as off-label use of ESIs or nerve blocks. ESIs for various back pain syndromes are one of the most common procedures performed in the United States and lumbosacral radicular ESI procedures represent 88% of total ESI procedures. ESIs are used when a patient’s pain is inadequately controlled with oral pain medications, topical systems or interventions such as physical therapy. ESIs have demonstrated efficacy in reducing pain, restoring function, reducing the need for other health care and avoiding back surgery. However, in addition to not being FDA-approved for the treatment of sciatica, currently-used ESIs also present various risks and challenges. When administering an ESI, many physicians use a particulate steroid (including methylprednisolone acetate, triamcinolone acetonide, or betamethasone sodium phosphate or betamethasone sodium acetate) instead of a non-particulate steroid (dexamethasone sodium phosphate) because early studies suggested that the duration of pain relief was longer with the particulates and fewer repeat injections were required, even though dexamethasone is considered an otherwise potent and therapeutically beneficial therapy. Particulate in injectable products is defined as extraneous undissolved particles present in injectable solution products. An example of such particulate is precipitate of insoluble drug product form, or suspended drug particle. These steroid particles or their aggregates have at least two mechanisms for neurological damage: (1) they can act as emboli if injected into an artery and are of sufficient size to block small terminal arterioles supplying the brain or spinal cord; and (2) several particulate steroids have an immediate and massive effect on microvascular perfusion because of formation of red blood cell aggregates. These emboli can cause rare but catastrophic neurologic injuries including stroke and spinal cord injury that can result in increased pain, severe permanent disability or death. In addition, fungal meningitis has occurred from the injection of steroids manufactured in a compounding pharmacy that did not adhere to sterility standards. The FDA has been evaluating serious neurologic events with ESIs since 2009, and in 2014, the FDA required a class warning on the currently off-label use of injectable corticosteroids to include information about the risk of serious neurologic events with ESIs. The warning on product labels for all injectable glucocorticoids states that the product is to be used for intramuscular or intravenous purposes only, and specifically includes a warning for serious neurologic adverse reactions with epidural administration. These serious neurologic events have been reported with and without the use of fluoroscopy. The class warning also includes a statement that safety and effectiveness of epidural administration of these corticosteroids have not been established. Certain third-party payors have also provided limited coverage of ESIs to date. Based on coverage criteria established by different health care plans and certain Medicare Administrative Contractors, an ESI is considered medically necessary and therefore reimbursable only when certain specific criteria are met. Our Solution We are developing SP-102 to address problems associated with currently available corticosteroid products that are used in practice but not approved for epidural injection or the treatment of sciatica. SP-102 is a Phase 3 sterile dexamethasone sodium phosphate viscous gel formulation of 10 mg dexamethasone at a 5 mg/mL concentration in a pre-filled glass syringe for delivery via an epidural injection. SP-102 allows for the use of the potent dexamethasone and provides for longer residency time at the site of injection through the use of a viscous excipient in lieu of particulates. The product is also formulated without the use of preservatives and packaged in a pre-filled syringe, so as to confer greater physician convenience. Currently-used steroids carry a class warning and are not approved to be administered epidurally for the treatment of sciatica. In fact, there are further warnings that the safety and efficacy of the use of these products following epidural administration has not been established. Their formulations include neurotoxic preservatives, surfactants, suspensions or particulates that carry risks of serious neurologic complications. Unlike currently-used steroids, SP-102 does not contain neurotoxic preservatives, surfactants, suspensions or particulates that carry risk of serious neurologic complications, which we believe may improve tolerability and the extent of pain relief. By using dexamethasone sodium phosphate, the soluble form of the potent dexamethasone, we believe SP-102 may substantially reduce the risk of embolic events in case of inadvertent intra-arterial administration and enable repeat injections. We expect the injectable viscous gel product, SP-102, which uses a biocompatible, biodegradable, novel excipient and is protected by multiple patents and patent applications and trade secrets, to prolong the residence time at the injection site and result in extended local activity. We believe SP-102, if successfully developed and approved, has the potential to reduce the disability related to lumbosacral radicular pain and help delay or avoid spine surgery. If approved, SP-102 could become the first FDA-approved ESI product for sciatica. We believe an FDA-approved therapy for the treatment of sciatica could potentially benefit from first-to-market advantage if it can be shown to reduce or delay the need for expensive and potentially risky interventions such as spinal surgery and decrease the use of opioids. SP-102 benefits from our substantial intellectual property portfolio and other technical barriers to entry for potential competitors. Historically, we have purchased our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate, one of the excipients for SP-102, from Genzyme pursuant to a supply agreement, which terminated as of May 31, 2024. We anticipate that our current supply of sodium hyaluronate will be sufficient to 12 satisfy our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate for at least 12 months following our expected commercial launch of SP-102 in 2027. We are currently in discussions with Sanofi, an affiliate of Genzyme, and are in the process of identifying and certifying new suppliers, in each case to fulfill our future supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate. Our complex manufacturing process, specialized equipment and know-how for sterile viscous product candidates are also key to our competitive edge. We have completed a pivotal Phase 3 Corticosteroid Lumbar Epidural Analgesia Radiculopathy (“CLEAR”) trial (NCT03372161), which was designed to evaluate the tolerability and clinical benefit of SP-102 in the proposed indication (i.e., treatment of LRP). The CLEAR clinical trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter Phase 3 trial that enrolled 401 subjects with LRP at over 40 clinical sites across the United States, with a primary objective to evaluate the analgesic effect on average in the affected leg pain (as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (“NPRS”) in the affected leg) following a single epidural transforaminal (TF) injection of SP-102, compared to an intramuscular (i.e., the posterior multifidus muscle) injection of placebo over four weeks. After the primary Week Four analysis period, and if the subject continued to experience leg pain, a repeat injection of open-label SP-102 was made optional at the investigator’s discretion. SP-103 (lidocaine topical system) 5.4% We are developing SP-103 to be a triple-strength, non-aqueous lidocaine topical system for the treatment of acute pain. SP-103 leverages the same adhesive drug delivery formulation and manufacturing as ZTlido along with comparable backing material, perforated release liner and container-closure system. The increase in drug load is offset by a corresponding decrease in the adhesive diluent. Our Solution Our triple-strength SP-103 is an investigational, non-aqueous lidocaine topical system undergoing clinical development in acute pain. If approved, we believe that SP-103 could become the lidocaine topical product for acute pain indications. This program builds on the learning from ZTlido because both products share the same superior adhesion and superior drug delivery formulation and manufacturing technology. We are developing SP-103 to deliver a dose of lidocaine that is at least three times higher than any approved lidocaine topical products (including the approved ZTlido, which has a drug load of 36 mg lidocaine). We manufacture SP-103 to have a drug load of 108 mg lidocaine in a similar superior adhesion as ZTlido, along with comparable backing material, perforated release liner and container-closure system. SP-103 has demonstrated delivery of three times the level of drug of ZTlido, and consequently delivers three times the level of drug of Lidoderm and associated generics by extrapolation. SP-103 has been granted fast track designation by the FDA in LBP. We believe SP-103, if successfully developed and approved, may be able to address the limitations of prescription lidocaine patches in treating acute pain by delivering a higher dose of lidocaine to the application site, but with systemic exposure of the drug remaining well below established safety thresholds. SP-103 has three times the drug load of ZTlido (108 mg versus 36 mg) in the adhesive system and can potentially deliver three times the level of the drug within a targeted area, with the convenience of a single topical system. This level of dosage for SP-103 is comparable to the maximum approved daily dosage of ZTlido, or three topical systems for up to 12 hours during a 24-hour period. By contrast, delivering higher levels of drug with other lidocaine patches is encumbered by the underlying hydrogel technology that constrains the level of drug that can be loaded into the adhesive of those products. The level of drug product in such patches can be increased only with a thicker adhesive layer, which can result in a loss of adhesion performance and flexibility. Further, increasing product dimensions can allow delivery of the drug over a larger area, but does not increase drug delivery to a localized area under the topical system. We believe the acute pain market presents an attractive commercial opportunity due to the large patient population, lack of any approved drugs and high level of unmet medical need. We believe developing and commercializing a topical non-opioid product targeting this segment of the pain population represents a commercially attractive strategy. Potential Additional Markets Neuropathic Pain Market Overview Neuropathic pain is triggered as a consequence of a disease or lesion to the somatosensory nervous system, altering its structure and function. It is maladaptive, meaning that the pain can be felt in the absence of a stimulus, and responses to innocuous and noxious stimuli are pathologically amplified. Neuropathic pain affects around 7-10% of the general population. Common causes of the condition include postsurgical and post-traumatic nerve damage or nerve pressure, vascular malformations, alcoholism, metabolic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, viral infections, and neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Chronic 13 neuropathic pain may also be associated with an underlying condition such as diabetic neuropathy or cancer, and with treatments such as chemotherapy. Neuropathic pain often manifests as a burning sensation, with the affected regions becoming sensitive to even a slight touch. The symptoms of neuropathic pain include burning and sensations of electric shock, sleep disturbance, depression and anxiety, numbness, pins and needles, and difficulty in sensing temperatures. Neuropathic Pain: Current Treatment Landscape and Limitations of Existing Treatments Recommended first-line treatment for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN includes topical lidocaine, gabapentinoids (which have been associated with the potential for abuse as well as numerous adverse events), antidepressants and a multi-modal approach. Topical lidocaine and gabapentinoids are preferred for combination therapies due to their low propensity for drug-to-drug interactions. For example, an eight-week combination use with pregabalin (Lyrica) has been proven to reduce pain in half for patients who had inadequate relief on monotherapy, despite titration of pregabalin to effect. This efficacy boost was achieved without tolerability issues or adding to side effects. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 75% of the 100,306 drug overdose deaths during the 12-month period ending in April 2021 involved opioids. Similarly, tricyclic antidepressants, which can be effective in managing the neuropathic pain associated with PHN, can result in significant systemic side effects and cardiotoxicity, posing risks to the elderly and patients with heart disease, epilepsy or glaucoma. These side effects make topical lidocaine products an attractive first-line treatment option from a safety perspective. The safety of lidocaine patches is well supported in medical literature. Unlike transdermal medications that are designed to achieve systemic drug levels via absorption through the skin or mucosal membrane, leading to effects away from the application site, topical lidocaine has a local effect at the site of application. Because drug application is localized to the immediate area surrounding the patch, systemic absorption from a topical patch is low, reducing the risk of systemic side effects and lowering the potential for drug interactions relative to other systemic pharmacologic therapies. Due to the low systemic exposure and minimal systemic side effects reported in clinical trials, we believe a topical lidocaine patch is well suited for patients being treated with multiple medications or at a higher risk of side effects, including the elderly or those with chronic conditions. As a localized treatment, lidocaine patches have been used concomitantly with other medications in patients for whom monotherapy is inadequate. Furthermore, we believe medication administered topically rather than orally can improve patient compliance. While lidocaine patches have certain advantages over the treatment alternatives discussed above, certain patches have limitations that may impact efficacy. For example, poor adhesion of the patch is a leading problem for topical lidocaine patches cited in the FAERS. Because the drug is incorporated in the adhesive for these products, patches must maintain adhesion or risk compromising the ability to deliver their full drug dose. As a result, establishing strong adhesion is a key factor for patient compliance and satisfaction. In draft guidance issued in July 2021, the FDA recommended that developers of topical and TDSs conduct studies to characterize the adhesion performance of the product with suggested data requirements. Likewise, the FDA issued draft guidance in October 2018 outlining the adhesion data requirements for generic TDSs. This guidance, along with Scilex’s past experience with regulatory agencies, shows the FDA’s interest and the importance of adhesion performance of these products. Since SP-103 uses the same technology as ZTlido, we anticipate that SP-103 will have similar superior adhesive properties. Acute & Chronic LBP Market Overview The safe and effective treatment of acute and chronic LBP addresses a high unmet need and creates large market opportunities. LBP affects about 70% of people in resource-rich countries at some point in their lives. Acute and chronic LBP can be self-limiting, however. One year after an initial episode, as many as 33% of people still have moderate intensity pain and 15% have severe pain. Acute LBP has a high recurrence rate with 75% of those with a first episode having a recurrence. Although acute episodes may resolve completely, they may increase in severity and duration over time. Americans spent approximately $134.5 billion in 2016 on treating LBP and neck pain, which was the highest expenditure among 154 conditions studied by the Department of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. Acute & Chronic LBP: Current Treatment Landscape and Limitations of Existing Treatments According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018, 28.0% of men and 31.6% of women aged 18 years old and older had lower back pain in the past three months. The percentage of women who had lower back pain increased as age increased. Among men, the percentage increased with age through age 74 years and then decreased. Women in the age groups 18 - 44, 45 - 64, and 75 years and older were more likely to have lower back pain in the past three months than were men in the same age groups, but percentages were similar between men and women in the age group 65-74 years. Although most patients recover quickly with minimal treatment, proper evaluation is imperative to identify rare cases of serious underlying pathology. Certain red flags should prompt aggressive treatment or referral to a spine specialist, whereas others are less concerning. Serious red flags include significant trauma related to age 14 (i.e., injury related to a fall from a height or motor vehicle crash in a young patient, or from a minor fall or heavy lifting in a patient with osteoporosis or possible osteoporosis), major or progressive motor or sensory deficit, new-onset bowel or bladder incontinence or urinary retention, loss of anal sphincter tone, saddle anesthesia, history of cancer metastatic to bone and suspected spinal infection. Without clinical signs of serious pathology, diagnostic imaging and laboratory testing often are not required. Although there are numerous treatments for nonspecific acute LBP, most have little evidence of benefit. Patient education and medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen and muscle relaxants are beneficial. SP-104 (4.5mg, low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules) We are developing SP-104 for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules are routinely used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and other chronic pain conditions such as complex regional pain. Fibromyalgia Market Overview Fibromyalgia affects an estimated 10 million people in the United States and an estimated 3% to 6% of the world population. While it is most prevalent in women, it also occurs in men and children of all ethnic groups. Fibromyalgia is the second most common disorder that rheumatologists encounter, seen in 15% of evaluated patients. Approximately 8% of patients cared for in primary care clinics have fibromyalgia. Prominent fibromyalgia researchers and specialists estimate the economic burden of fibromyalgia in the United States to be between $12 billion to $14 billion each year and the condition accounts for a loss of 1% to 2% of the national overall productivity. Potential Complications of Fibromyalgia The following is a non-exhaustive list of complications of fibromyalgia: • extreme allodynia with high levels of distress; • opioid or alcohol dependence; • marked functional impairment; • severe depression and anxiety; • obesity and physical deconditioning; and • metabolic syndrome. 15 Although fibromyalgia is frequently grouped with arthritis-related conditions, there is no apparent inflammation or damage to the joints, muscles or other tissues. The diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia are detailed in the chart below. Currently approved products for pain in fibromyalgia, including duloxetine, pregabalin and milnacipran, have limited efficacy. Responders applying such products can only demonstrate a 27% to 40% reduction of symptoms, which is far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50% to prove efficacy in treating fibromyalgia. In light of this, we believe new treatments with higher efficacy are needed to improve management of fibromyalgia. Our Solution SP-104 has key clinical data supporting its use in fibromyalgia. There are investigational trials that support use and development of SP-104 for fibromyalgia. Currently there are no low-dose formulations (i.e., less than 5 mg) available. Physicians currently use the commercially available high-dose tablets (50 mg) and have compounding pharmacies aliquot lower doses for patients. Pharmacy-compounding is inherently inaccurate and does not involve analyses to confirm that the aliquoted product has the target level of drug, and there is no assurance as to content uniformity within a batch as well as other quality attributes critical for pharmaceutical product performance. This approach can lead to errors in dosing and challenges with titration. The commercial products and pharmacy-compounded products also allow for the immediate release of the drug in the stomach, which can lead to compliance challenges due to severe side effects. Common side effects for naltrexone include hyperalgesia, dysphoria, insomnia and anxiety. All these issues culminate into patient compliance issues and result in the eventual abandonment of an otherwise viable therapy to treat this debilitating disease. Our SP-104 uses delayed burst release technology that bypasses the stomach and releases the drug in the gut (upper intestine). When taking SP-104 at night before bed, peak drug levels are achieved at night during sleep, allowing the patient to avoid conscious perception of hyperalgesia and other side effects. The combination of the delayed-release and administration at night may also maximize efficacy as most endorphin/ enkephalin release is during sleep, which maximizes the product’s potential to elicit compensatory response. We are committed to developing SP-104 for fibromyalgia. Phase 1 studies are designed to characterize the PK and safety profile of SP-104. If successful, we believe SP-104 can become a pivotal treatment for management of fibromyalgia, which represents a large commercial opportunity with high unmet demands. 16 Commercialization and Market Access Sales & Marketing We have built a robust and integrated commercial infrastructure using a dedicated sales force and sales management, marketing and managed care capabilities, to maximize the potential of our three current marketed products, ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA, and to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. We are focused on achieving accelerated sales growth and increased market uptake for ZTlido in the topical lidocaine product market, where we believe we have the only actively promoted product, ELYXYB in the migraine market, and GLOPERBA in the grout market. Our dedicated sales force of over 70 people has broad experience in pain management and is exclusively focused on promoting ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA. Our sales representatives leverage their established relationships to call on over 10,000 target pain specialists, neurologists, select primary care providers and palliative care physicians who Scilex believes treat the majority of PHN patients and migraine patients. We believe these same call points provide treatment for the sciatica, acute LBP, and acute pain patients that could benefit from SEMDEXA and SP-103, if approved. Our sales representatives typically have over 10 years of experience in promoting a broad scope of pain management products that Scilex intends to leverage as our product candidates are commercialized. As of December 31, 2024, ZTlido had gained approximately 9.2% market share of the lidocaine patch prescription market across the territories we cover in the United States. The total prescriptions of ZTlido for the year ended December 31, 2024 grew by approximately 2.4% over the year ended December 31, 2023, according to Symphony Healthcare’s national prescription data. Our experienced sales representatives and managers are supported by our marketing team, whose members have successfully launched over 20 products with large pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies. Our marketing team has developed a multi-channel marketing strategy to promote the continued uptake of ZTlido by highlighting its significantly improved adhesion and continuous pain relief throughout the 12-hour administration period. We are also promoting ZTlido with a marketing campaign that engages patients seeking relief for neuropathic pain associated with PHN through social media and medical and consumer journals. Further, our marketing function is supported by an experienced analytics team that leverages its experience in forecasting and analytics to draw insights from healthcare databases to inform our marketing strategy. As part of our broader commercial strategy, our marketing analytics team is conducting market research to support the launch of SP-102, SP-103 and SP-104, if any of these candidates is approved. We believe that our sales force, supporting commercial infrastructure and established relationships with our targeted physician audience will provide a strategic advantage in pursuing potential partnerships to commercialize other non-opioid pain management therapeutics. Market Access We have established a patient-centric market access function with robust capabilities across the market access continuum, including payor sales, contracting and marketing strategies, supplemental patient assistance programs and responsible drug pricing to support patients’ access to ZTlido. Our team of managed healthcare account executives has demonstrated experience in establishing products on formularies and have currently prioritized and targeted select payor accounts representing approximately 275 million of the over 300 million lives, with the remaining 25 million to be considered in the future. Currently, ZTlido is covered for over 200 million lives in the United States and coverage continues to improve. As of January 2023, we have secured coverage for ZTlido on CVS Caremark/Aetna Commercial, Cigna HealthCare (commercial and Medicare plans), Express Scripts (commercial and most Medicare plans), United Healthcare Commercial, Optum Rx Select Commercial, Anthem BCBS, BCBS Louisiana and Kansas, Lifetime/Excellus BCBS, MedImpact, CareFirst, Elixir Commercial and Medicaid in California, Florida, Idaho, and North Dakota. We continue to negotiate coverage with large payors and pharmacy benefit managers in all books of business. ZTlido Formulary Coverage - Over 90% of Lives Covered or In Negotiation 17 We utilize an outside vendor to administer a patient assistance program directed at patients with commercial insurance or those paying out-of-pocket. With the co-pay assistance program, qualifying patients do not have to pay any co-payment for their ZTlido prescription. We utilize an external vendor and train the sales force to work proactively with clinician office managers in completing required forms for prior authorization for ZTlido. Clinical Development Overview ZTlido Clinical Trial Highlights We have evaluated ZTlido in over 600 subjects in clinical trials to support marketing approval and promotional campaigns for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN in the United States. Our studies sought to investigate the bioequivalence of ZTlido compared to Lidoderm, adhesion performance and the dermal safety and tolerability of ZTlido under a range of application times and settings. Based on these studies, we concluded that ZTlido: • demonstrated bioequivalence to Lidoderm in study SCI-LIDO-PK-002A; • showed greater than or equal to 90% adhesion in over 90% of the subjects at the end of the 12-hour administration period in study SCI-LIDO-ADH-001; • showed superior adhesion to Lidoderm and Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch in studies SCI-LIDO-AHD-002 and SCI-LIDO-ADH-003; • was not meaningfully impacted by heat or exercise in study SCI-LIDO-HEX-001; • was able to be used under showering and bathing conditions in study SCI-LIDO-ADH-004; and • did not show clinically meaningful dermal irritation in study SCI-LIDO-DERM-001. ZTlido Study Details Pivotal Bioequivalence Study - SCI-LIDO-PK-002A We conducted a comparative single-dose PK study between ZTlido and Lidoderm designed as a two-way cross-over in 54 healthy subjects. In this trial design, each subject received a single dose of three ZTlido or three Lidoderm patches followed by a washout period and the administration of the other product. The purpose of this study was to establish bioequivalence between the products, which was determined by the statistical comparability of Cmax and AUC as shown in the figure below. This was considered the pivotal clinical trial for ZTlido, as it provided the pharmaceutical bridge between the two products and showed that ZTlido had comparable safety and efficacy to Lidoderm. As a result of successfully establishing the pharmaceutical bridge, no stand-alone clinical efficacy studies were required by the FDA to determine ZTlido’s analgesic effects for ZTlido’s approval. 18 Mean Lidocaine Plasma Concentration Time Profiles - Semilog Scale Pivotal Adhesion Study - SCI-LIDO-ADH-001 We conducted an open-label, single-treatment, single-period, single-application adhesion performance study in 54 healthy, human subjects to assess the adhesion performance of ZTlido over the 12-hour administration period of the product. The study also investigated whether ZTlido met an FDA established adhesion performance benchmark of greater than or equal to 90% adhesion in greater than or equal to 90% of subjects in the study at the end of the administration period. At the end of the 12-hour administration period, over 90% of the subjects (49 out of the 54 subjects) maintained greater than or equal to 90% adhesion, with no adverse events reported during the study. ZTlido Maintained Greater Than 90% Adhesion Over the 12-Hour Time Period This study was considered the pivotal adhesion study for marketing approval and is summarized in the product label. Head-to-Head Adhesion Study versus Lidoderm - SCI-LIDO-ADH-002 19 We conducted an open label, single-treatment, three-period, single-application adhesion performance study in 44 healthy, human subjects to evaluate the adhesion performance of ZTlido compared to the adhesion performance of Lidoderm over a 12-hour administration period. In this study, ZTlido demonstrated significantly superior mean adhesion scores compared to Lidoderm at 3, 5, 9 and 12 hours after application. ZTlido maintained a mean percent adhesion performance greater than 90% over the 12-hour administration period, while Lidoderm fell below 90% mean adhesion within three hours. ZTlido Demonstrated Superior Adhesion Compared to Lidoderm Head-to-Head Adhesion Study versus Mylan’s Generic - SCI-LIDO-ADH-003 We conducted an open-label, single-treatment, two-period, single-application adhesion performance study in 24 healthy, human subjects to evaluate the adhesion performance of ZTlido compared to the adhesion performance of a generic lidocaine patch 5% manufactured by Mylan over a 12-hour administration period. The purpose of this study was to compare the adhesion performance of ZTlido against a topical lidocaine product involving a non-aqueous formulation. We selected Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch as a comparator because it has similar product characteristics, including a non-aqueous polymer drug-in-adhesive system allowing for a thinner patch and a lower drug load as compared to Lidoderm. In this study, ZTlido demonstrated significantly superior adhesion performance compared to Mylan’s generic lidocaine patch. ZTlido maintained a mean adhesion greater than 90% over the 12-hour administration period, while the generic product had a mean adhesion score of only 80% immediately after application, which declined to a mean adhesion score of 27% at 12 hours after application. 20 ZTlido Demonstrated Superior Adhesion Compared to Mylan’s Generic Lidocaine Patch PK and Adhesion Study under Exercise and Heat Conditions - SCI-LIDO-HEX-001 We conducted an open-label, randomized, three-treatment, three-sequence, three-period, cross-over, PK and adhesion performance study of three ZTlido topical systems applied to separate areas in 12 healthy, human subjects during physical exercise, exposure to heat and under normal conditions, respectively. The three treatment periods were as follows: • Treatment A sought to assess the PK and adhesion performance of ZTlido under physical exercise conditions. In this treatment period, subjects were instructed to perform exercise for 30 minutes on a stationary bike achieving a heart rate of 108 beats per minute, with continuous heart monitoring during exercise. Subjects were instructed to perform exercise immediately after the application of the topical system and at 2.5, 5.5 and 8.5 hours following the application of the topical system. • Treatment B sought to assess the PK and adhesion performance of ZTlido under heat conditions. In this treatment period, a heating pad adjusted to the medium setting was applied for 20 minutes immediately after application of the topical system and at 8.5 hours following the application of the topical system. • Treatment C sought to assess the PK and adhesion performance of ZTlido under normal conditions. In this treatment period, topical systems were applied to the mid-lower back and worn for 12 hours. In treatment A, adhesion and PK performance were not compromised by exercise, as reflected in the product label. In treatment B, heat had an effect on PK but had no effect on adhesion. In Treatment C, normal PKs were observed and greater than 90% of subjects showed greater than 90% adhesion. No meaningful irritation was observed across all treatments across all time points in any of the subjects. The impact of heat and exercise on PK is presented in the figure below. It was observed that heat had an effect on Cmax, but the drug returned to normal levels after removal of heat and there was no clinically meaningful observed effect on AUC. Heat did not appear to have a deleterious or catastrophic effect on topical system performance, either as a dose-dump (i.e., immediate and complete release of all drug from the product), or as reduced drug delivery (i.e., much lower systemic exposure). There was no significant effect on PK observed with exercise when compared to subjects under normal conditions. 21 ZTlido Demonstrated Consistent* PK Performance under Exercise and Heat Conditions * Defined as no clinically meaningful changes by meeting bioequivalence criteria Dermal Sensitization and Irritation Study - SCI-LIDO-DERM-001 We conducted a provocative dermal sensitization and irritation human clinical trial, also referred to as a repeat insult topical system test, intended to elicit the worst-case dermal safety of ZTlido by extended wearing of the product over multiple days. In this trial, we compared the sensitization potential, and the overall irritation profiles of ZTlido and Lidoderm in 218 normal and healthy subjects. We used a 7-point scale where a score of 0 indicated no irritation and a score of 7 was considered a strong reaction spreading beyond the application site. In this study, results showed that the adhesion quality of ZTlido did not compromise dermal safety. The study reported that ZTlido did not show potential for dermal sensitization and showed an overall benign irritation profile. Both ZTlido and Lidoderm had a mean irritation score well below 1, which is defined as barely perceptible erythema. This study allowed for the ZTlido label to adopt the same local tolerance language as labeled for Lidoderm. Photoallergy and Phototoxicity Studies - SCI-LIDO-PHOT0-001 and SCI-LIDO-PHOTO-002 We conducted a 6-week randomized study, SCI-LIDO-PHOTO-001, to evaluate the potential of ZTlido and its comparator, Lidoderm, to induce a photoallergic skin reaction in 54 healthy volunteers. In this study, we observed that ZTlido was not photoallergic. We conducted a 4-day, randomized study, SCI-LIDO-PHOTO-002, to evaluate the irritation potential of ZTlido and its comparator, Lidoderm, when application to skin is followed by light exposure in 32 healthy volunteers, using a phototoxicity patch test. In this study, we observed that ZTlido was not phototoxic. Post-Approval Studies for ZTlido Water Stress Study (Shower and Swimming) - SCI-LIDO-ADH-004 We conducted a single-dose study in 24 subjects to examine the adhesion and lidocaine delivery (PK) of ZTlido when it is exposed to two separate water stress conditions of (1) showering (10 minutes) and (2) swimming (15 minutes). The study showed that while some degree of product lifting was observed, the product could be pressed back down or reattached with no further diminished adhesion performance or drug delivery. This study led to a change in the product label indicating that patients may use the product while showering or bathing. This provides significant patient convenience as Lidoderm and the associated generics are labeled to avoid contact with 22 water such as bathing, swimming or showering, as these products may not stick if they get wet. With ZTlido, patients can engage in these activities within the 12-hour administration period. Investigator-Sponsored Studies We plan to support several investigator-initiated research studies to evaluate the clinical benefits of using ZTlido in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, neck pain, intercostal neuralgia and other possible indications. SP-102 (SEMDEXA) We have completed a Phase 3 pivotal study of SP-102. The CLEAR study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial that enrolled 401 patients with sciatica to compare the epidural administration of SP-102 to placebo. We announced final results from this study in March 2022. We also presented the pivotal Phase 3 trial results at the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians annual meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada in May 2022. Clinical Trial Highlights SP-102 has been evaluated in a number of preclinical studies and clinical trials as a potential treatment for sciatica. Key findings from the preclinical studies and clinical trials include: • Repeat injections of SP-102 showed continued pain reduction with no unexpected adverse events based on preliminary results from the SP-102-03 study; • SP-102 showed an extended local activity with epidural administration in the ES-1504 study; • SP-102 showed an extended residence time and tolerability in the 1014-1512 and the 1014-2847, preclinical studies; and • The introduction of SP-102 into blood vessels did not result in neurological complications in the UPD003-IS21 preclinical toxicology study. SP-102 (SEMDEXA) Study Details Phase 3 Pivotal Clinical Trial - CLEAR We have completed a pivotal, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial, CLEAR, that enrolled 401 patients with sciatica at over 40 sites across the United States. The study included an open-label extension where subjects were followed for up to 24 weeks after treatment to evaluate the safety of administering SP-102 in a larger patient population. After week 4, subjects who met certain pain criteria received open-label SP-102 to investigate the safety of repeat injections and the duration of pain relief following injection. This well-controlled, randomized trial was designed to demonstrate evidence of the analgesic effect and safety of SP-102. The schematic of this Phase 3 trial is demonstrated in the flowchart below. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of SP-102 on average leg pain, measured using the NPRS following a single transforaminal injection. These results were compared to an intra-muscular injection of placebo over a four-week period. The secondary objectives of this study include (i) evaluation of the degree of disability over time as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index; (ii) characterization of the change of the subject’s radiculopathy symptoms and overall condition, using a combination of PainDETECT, modified Brief Pain Inventory, Clinical Global Impression of Change, and Patient Global Impression of Change and (iii) evaluation of the safety of a single and repeat SP-102 injection. Schematic of CLEAR - SP-102 (SEMDEXA) Phase 3 Pivotal Trial 23 A full 6-month data analysis was completed in February 2022 and we announced final results from the study in March 2022, which results reflect achievement of primary and secondary endpoints. We also presented the pivotal Phase 3 trial results at the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians annual meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada in May 2022. The Phase 3 CLEAR trial summary results, which results reflect achievement of primary and majority of secondary endpoints, are as follows: • For the intent-to-treat (“ITT”) population, the primary endpoint of change in average daily NPRS pain in the affected leg over four weeks following the initial injection of SP-102 demonstrated least square (“LS”) mean treatment difference (standard error (“SE”)) of -0.52 (0.163) units [95% confidence interval (“CI”): -0.84, - 0.20] compared to placebo (P=0.002). The change from baseline to Week Four in the mean daily average NPRS pain score (standard deviation (“SD”)) in the affected leg was -1.81 (1.896) for SP-102 versus -1.29 (1.814) in the placebo group. The calculated standardized effect size (Cohen’s D calculated as the group mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation) associated with the ITT population is 0.28. A statistically significant difference in the mean daily average NPRS pain change between SP-102 and placebo was observed at Week One with a mean change from baseline of -1.49 (1.519) for SP-102 and -1.02 (1.472) for placebo (P=0.002), which was maintained through Week Four. These highly significant differences between SP-102 and placebo were also observed following sensitivity analyses for fixed effects. • Likewise for the ITT population, most of the secondary endpoints at four weeks also demonstrated statistically significant results. For the key secondary endpoint of mean change in Oswestry Disability Index (“ODI”) from baseline, the LS mean treatment difference (SE) for SP-102 was -3.38 (1.388) units [95% CI: -6.11, -0.65] compared to placebo (P=0.015). SP-102 treatment resulted in a -8.88 point reduction from baseline, which exceeds the minimal clinically important difference of -8 established in a reported pain study. • Additional secondary endpoints with statistically significant results for the ITT population include worst pain in affected leg at Week Four (P=0.004) and over four weeks (P=0.001), current pain in the affected leg (P=0.009), average pain in lower back (P=0.035), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (“BPI-SF”) for pain severity (P=0.003) and pain interference (P=0.049), Patient Global Impression of Change (“PGIC”) (P<0.001) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (“CGIC”) (P<0.001), with the proportion of patients achieving a response at 30% (P=0.002). • The time to repeat injection (50th quantile [95% CI]) for the ITT population was 84 (71, 100) days for SP-102 versus 58 (50, 69) days for placebo (P=0.001). • Additional analyses were performed with the modified ITT population (“mITT”), the population with fluoroscopically confirmed needle placement. The primary endpoint group mean difference, associated standardized effect size (Cohen’s D), and statistical significance were improved for the mITT population (i.e., -1.08 (0.171), Cohen’s D = 0.68, P<0.001), which were initially observed at week one and improved through Week Four. Similarly, the mITT population was observed to have improved with mostly highly statistically significant outcomes for SP-102 over placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints. In contrast to the ITT population, the mITT population was 24 observed to have statistically significant PainDETECT (a tool to detect neuropathic pain components) for SP-102 over placebo (P=0.037) as well as number of subjects experiencing a 50% reduction in pain in the affected leg (P<0.001). • For the mITT population, the time to repeat injection (50th quantile [95% CI]) was 99 (78, 129) days for SP-102 versus 57 (49, 67) days for placebo. • There were no serious adverse events (“SAEs”) related to SP-102 or its administration procedure. There were no adverse events (“AEs”) leading to death, and no AEs of special interest (“AESIs”) (i.e., paraplegia, hematoma, or infection at the injection site). There were four (1.4%) subjects experiencing SAEs and one (0.3%) subject experiencing an AE leading to early withdrawal after receiving SP-102. Two (1.0%) subjects experienced an SAE, with one (0.5%) subject experiencing an AE leading to early withdrawal and one patient death following placebo. The fatal SAE was considered unrelated to the placebo or study procedure, as were the SAEs leading to early withdrawal. In general, a slightly higher proportion of subjects in the SP-102 group had treatment emergent AEs (“TEAEs”) than in the placebo group, (60 [29.7%] subjects vs 42 [21.1%] subjects with any TEAE). The most common TEAEs by system organ class (SOC) were nervous system disorders: 20 (9.9%) in the SP-102 group, 16 (8.0%) in the placebo group, and 20 (7.0%) in the SP-102 repeat injection group. The most common TEAEs by preferred term (“PT”) were headache, reported in 13 (6.4%) subjects in the SP-102 group, 11 (5.5%) subjects in the placebo group, and 10 (3.5%) subjects the SP-102 repeat injection group. • Overall, headaches were more commonly reported in subjects exposed to SP-102 than in subjects not exposed to SP-102 through 12 weeks (6.5% vs 2.1%). Headaches were generally mild, transient, and associated with the epidural injection. Pain at the site of injection was only reported for subjects receiving SP-102 following the initial injection (2.0%) and repeat injection (0.7%). Otherwise, TEAEs occurring ³ 2% of subjects were low and balanced between SP-102 and placebo. TEAEs occurring with an incidence ³ 2% remained low following the repeat injection. • There were no meaningful differences observed in physical examinations, vital signs, or laboratory parameters between treatment groups. The data from the primary endpoint analyses is graphically presented below. Summary tables are also provided for primary and secondary endpoints. Mean Change From Baseline in NPRS Average Pain Score (Standard Error) in the Affected Leg (ITT Population) SP-102 vs Placebo Weeks 1,2,3,4: p = 0.002, 0.005, 0.003, 0.003. Overall treatment Effect (Mean SP-102 vs Placebo difference): Diff = -0.52, SE= 0.163, p = 0.002. Error Bars: 95% Confidence Limits. Primary and Secondary Outcomes: NPRS Average Leg Pain In Affected Leg, ODI Total Score, Mean Daily NPRS (worst, current, and lower back), PainDetect, BPI-SF (Change from Baseline to Four Weeks; ITT Population) SP-102 Placebo N=202 N=199 LSM (SE) 95% CI P-value Endpoint Mean Change from Baseline (1) Mean Change from Baseline NPRS Average Pain Score in the Affected Leg (primary endpoint) (2) . . . -1.81 (1.896) -1.29 (1.814) -0.55 (0.187) -0.92, -0.18 0.003 ODI total score (key secondary endpoint) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -8.88 (14.684) -5.48 (13.083) -3.38 (1.388) -6.11, -0.65 0.015 Worst pain in affected leg at Week Four (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1.88 (2.014) -1.33 (1.946) -0.57 (0.198) -0.96, -0.18 0.004 Worst pain in affected leg over Four Weeks (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.56 (0.173) -0.90, -0.22 0.001 Current pain in affected leg (2) . . . . . . . . . -1.8 (2.28) -1.2 (2.41) -0.6 (0.23) -1.1, -0.2 0.009 Average pain in lower back (2) . . . . . . . . . -0.7 (2.54) -0.2 (2.48) -0.5 (0.23) -0.9, 0.0 0.035 PainDETECT (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -2.7 (6.47) -2.5 (6.07) -0.3 (0.62) -1.5, 0.9 0.642 Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form score (pain severity) (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1.56 (1.952) -0.98 (1.928) -0.59 (0.200) -0.98, -0.20 0.003 25 Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form score (pain interference) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1.16 (2.413) -0.71 (2.095) -0.44 (0.221) -0.87, 0.00 0.049 (1) Baseline NPRS score is the mean of at least five days and no more than seven days of scores from the screening visit until treatment randomization. For the current pain, baseline is the last score prior to treatment. Baseline ODI is defined as the last ODI assessment score prior to the first dose on Day 1. (2) The analysis uses a REML-based MMRM with fixed effects for treatment (SP-102 or placebo), week, site, Pain Catastrophizing Scale group (<30 or ³ 30), baseline score, and treatment-by-week interaction. (3) The analysis uses an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment (SP-102 or placebo), site, Pain Catastrophizing Scale group (<30 or ³ 30), and baseline score. ANCOVA: analysis of covariance; ANOVA: analysis of variance; BPI-SF: Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form; CI: confidence interval; ITT: intent-to-treat (randomized population); LSM: least-squares mean; MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures; NPRS: numeric pain rating scale; REML: restricted maximum likelihood; SE: standard error Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – ITT Population SP-102 N=202 Placebo N=199 PGIC Responders (number of patients who responded with “very much improved” or “much improved” (1) 71 (35.1%) 39 (19.6%) Chi-Square P<0.001 Logistic regression (odds ratio [95% CI]) (2) 2.25 (1.42, 3.54) P<0.001 CGIC Responders (number of patients assessed as “very much improved” or “much improved” (1) 76 (37.6%) 39 (19.6%) Chi-Square P<0.001 Logistic regression (odds ratio [95% CI]) (2) 2.49 (1.58, 3.91) P<0.001 (1) 7-point scale rating patient’s overall improvement. Patient change is rated from “very much improved”, “much improved”, “minimally improved”, “no change”, “minimally worse”, “much worse” or “very much worse”. (2) Logistic regression models with treatment (SP-102 or placebo), site, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale group (<30 or ³ 30) as factors. CI: confidence interval; ITT: intent-to-treat (randomized population) Time to Repeat Injection – ITT Population SP-102 N=202 Placebo N=199 Number of patients with Repeat Injection of SP-102 (patients who received open-label SP-102 between 4 and 20 weeks after initial injection) 134 (66.3%) 152 (76.4%) Number of censored patients (1) 68 (33.7%) 47 (23.6%) Chi-Square P=0.026 Time (days) to Repeat Injection N 134 (66.3%) 152 (76.4%) Mean (SD) 67.0 (33.31) 57.8 (31.69) Median 57.5 43.0 Min, Max 27, 143 26, 148 25th quantile (95% CI) (2) 45 (43, 57) 36 (34, 40) 50th quantile (95% CI) (2) 84 (71, 100) 58 (50, 69) 75th quantile (95% CI) (2) 143 (141, 143) 126 (87, 146) Comparison to Placebo (3) 0.68 (0.54, 0.86) (Hazard ratio [95% CI]): P=0.001 (1) Censored patients are the following: (1) patients who do not receive a repeat injection of SP-102 and (2) patients who discontinued the study prior to Week 20 without receiving a repeat injection. 26 (2) Quartiles are estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimation. (3) A Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to test the treatment difference while adjusting for site and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (<30 or ³ 30). CI: confidence interval; ITT: intent-to-treat (randomized population); SD: standard deviation Responder Analysis (Change from Baseline in Mean NPRS, Average Daily Pain in Affected Leg) (1) – ITT Population SP-102 N=202 Placebo N=199 30% reduction 88 (43.6%) 57 (28.6%) Chi-Square P=0.002 Logistic regression (2) (odds ratio [95% CI]) 1.96 (1.28, 2.98) P=0.002 50% reduction 58 (28.7%) 41 (20.6%) Chi-Square P=0.060 Logistic regression (2) (odds ratio [95% CI]) 1.58 (0.99, 2.52) P=0.055 (1) Patients that discontinued or have missing scores at Week Four were considered non-responders. (2) Logistic regression models with treatment (SP-102 or placebo), site, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale group (<30 or ³ 30), and baseline averaged daily pain score as factors were used to compare the treatment groups at each week. CI: confidence interval; ITT: intent-to-treat (randomized population) Phase 2 Repeat Dose Study - SP-102-03 We conducted an open-label, single-arm, pharmacodynamics (“PD”) and tolerability study of repeat epidural injections of SP-102 in patients with sciatica. We conducted this study to characterize repeat dose PD with respect to hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal suppression using plasma cortisol levels, white blood cell count and blood glucose levels. The study enrolled 19 subjects, of which 15 received repeat SP-102 epidural injections four to eight weeks after the initial injection. Four of the subjects did not experience recurrent pain and thus did not require a repeat injection. The daily average, current and worst pain in the affected leg and back showed continuous reduction throughout the 28-day observation period for both treatments. Based on a preliminary review of the results, SP-102 injections were generally well tolerated and there were no new unexpected adverse events observed. Mean Percentage Change in Sciatica-Related Leg Pain as Measured by NPRS Phase 1 Trial of SP-102 (SEMDEXA) Compared to Reference Listed Drug - ES-1504 27 We conducted an open-label, single-arm, two-period, fixed sequential-dose study to evaluate the PK, PD and tolerability of SP-102 when administered by epidural injection. SP-102 was compared to intravenous dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection in subjects with lumbosacral radiculopathy. There were 12 subjects enrolled in this study, all of whom received SP-102 followed by the intravenous dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection (Reference Listed Drug (“RLD”)) administered one month later. A RLD is an approved drug product to which new versions are compared to show that they are bioequivalent. The purpose of this study was to establish the pharmaceutical bridge between SP-102 and the RLD. The Tmax observed with the administration of SP-102 was four hours, compared to 15 minutes observed with intravenous dexamethasone. The PD parameters and tolerability profiles of both products were similar, and SP-102 did not prolong cortisol suppression time. SP-102 also maintained analgesic effects throughout a one-month observation period. The overall systemic exposure of dexamethasone was similar, whether administered as SP-102 or injected intravenously, with a mean AUCinf of 0.916 μg*h/mL (observed with SP-102) compared to 0.943 μg*h/mL (observed with intravenously-administered dexamethasone). Notably, there was a 16- fold increase in the time to maximum serum concentration (“Tmax”) following epidural injection of SP-102. The median Tmax was 4.00 hours for SP-102 compared to 0.25 hours for the comparison group. All 12 subjects with sciatica showed continuous reduction in back and leg pain during the one-month observation period following a single epidural injection of SP-102. This study demonstrated that at an equivalent initial dose of dexamethasone, the systemic exposure to dexamethasone following epidural injection of SP-102 did not exceed the exposure following intravenous injection of the RLD. The PD effects, measured as white blood cell count, cortisol levels and glucose levels, as well as the tolerability profile, were similar between the two treatments. SP-102 injections were generally well tolerated and did not result in new unexpected side effects. Toxicology Studies - Study Nos. 1014-1512 and 1014-2847 We conducted PK and toxicology studies in two non-rodent animal species to assess SP-102 administered via epidural and intrathecal routes with single and multiple dose regimens. Pharmacokinetically, a prolonged increase in the active dexamethasone metabolite was consistent with the extended residence time of the viscous gel formulation of SP-102 at the site of injection. There were no new unexpected toxicology findings apart from well-characterized toxicity findings commonly observed with administration of dexamethasone sodium phosphate. Based on these studies, we selected the 10mg Dexamethasone in 2mL volume dose for our further clinical studies. This selection was endorsed by the FDA during our pre-IND meeting. Preclinical Toxicology Study - UPD003-IS21 We conducted a preclinical toxicology study designed to simulate the accidental introduction of epidural steroids into arterial blood vessels providing blood supply to the spinal cord, which is a major cause of neurological complications associated with current administration of suspension steroids containing particulates. A 2 mL (10 mg of dexamethasone) injection of SP-102 was injected over one to two minutes into the vertebral artery of large animal species. Pre- and post-dose angiography showed no remarkable changes and all animals survived for approximately 24 hours until euthanasia. The veterinary animal health report and the pathology report concluded there were no vascular, spinal cord or brain injuries associated with injection into the vertebral artery of the animals. Hydrodynamic Study - SP-PC002 We conducted a hydrodynamic study of SP-102 in non-rodent animal species, which showed that epidural administration of SP-102 demonstrated an increased local residence half-life and a decreased flow from the injection site. Intravascular Injection Study - SEM-005 We conducted a study to evaluate the accidental intravascular injection of SP-102 into the vertebral artery of non-rodent animals. There were no adverse clinical signs associated with the accidental intra-arterial injection of SP-102 following a 24-hour survival period. 28 SP-103 (lidocaine topical system) 5.4% SP-103 is an investigational, non-aqueous lidocaine topical system undergoing clinical development in acute LBP. As a higher strength topical lidocaine system, SP-103 will build on the learnings from ZTlido because both products share the same adhesive drug delivery formulation and manufacturing technology. The clinical program involves evaluating the safety and efficacy of SP-103 for the treatment of acute LBP. A Phase 1 study was completed that demonstrated bioequivalent PK between the administration of a single SP-103 and the administration of three commercial ZTlido. The study also showed linear kinetics among multiple applications of SP-103 (i.e., one, two or three patches) over a 12-hour administration period. Adhesion performance was assessed and found to be comparable between SP-103 and ZTlido. We received our SP-103 Phase 2 top-line results in August 2023 and the trial achieved its objectives characterizing safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of SP-103 in acute LBP associated with muscle spasms. SP-103 was safe and well tolerated. Increase of lidocaine load in topical system by three times, compared with approved ZTlido, 5.4% vs. 1.8%, did not result in signs of systemic toxicity or increased application site reactions with daily applications over one month treatment. SP-103 received FDA Fast Track status in LBP. We will continue to analyze the SP-103 Phase 2 trial data along with an investigator study at Johns Hopkins University completed in the second half of 2023, investigating ZTlido in patients with chronic non-radicular neck pain, which also has shown promising top-line efficacy and safety results. While the phase 2 trial in acute LBP had demonstrated an effect in a subpopulation of patients who had acute LBP associated with more severe muscle spasms, the investigator-initiated randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled trial showed substantial reduction of average daily pain in general population of patients with chronic non-radicular neck pain following the application of ZTlido. We therefore plan to prioritize further potential development of SP-103 for the treatment of acute pain. SP-103, if approved, could become the first FDA-approved lidocaine topical product for the treatment of acute pain. SP-104 (4.5mg, low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules) Two Phase 1 trials have been completed for SP-104 at investigative sites in New Zealand: • SP-104-01 is a food effect and bridging PK study comparing SP-104 to Naltrexone HCL Tablets conducted on approximately 18 healthy adult subjects. The study is designed to be an open-label, three-period, three-treatment, randomized study to characterize the PK and safety and tolerability of SP-104 under fasting and fed conditions. Subjects are randomly administered a single dose of one of three treatments and followed for PK and safety for a period of time followed by a washout period before receiving one of the other treatments. All subjects receive all three treatments. The study characterize the single-dose clinical studies and ultimately the commercial label. The study also serves as a “pharmaceutical bridge” between SP-104 and the commercial RLD (Naltrexone HCI tablets, USP 50 mg) to support the eventual Section 505(b)(2) NDA. Assuming that the rate and extent of drug exposure for SP-104 will be lower than that observed for the RLD, this study allows us to rely upon the FDA’s findings of safety for the RLD instead of having to perform extensive nonclinical animal safety toxicology studies and establish an extensive clinical safety database. Our development program can focus on establishing efficacy of SP-104 in the treatment of fibromyalgia. • SP-104-02 is a Phase 1 study of SP-104 conducted on approximately 52 healthy human subjects. The study is designed to be a double-blind, randomized, two-period, two-treatment crossover study to evaluate the safety of SP-104, compared to immediate release naltrexone capsules. The primary purpose of the study is to test the hypothesis that, when taken at night, the delayed release of 4.5 mg Naltrexone mitigates against adverse events known for the drug and could affect patient compliance in maintaining treatment for their fibromyalgia. In a small (n=52) cross-over trial in healthy volunteers comparing SP-104 (naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release 4.5 mg) to naltrexone hydrochloride immediate release 4.5 mg (the “compared drug”), there were no serious adverse effects, no AEs leading to discontinuation, no meaningful differences in physical examinations, vital signs, or laboratory parameters between treatments, no severe AEs for either treatment. Of the 52 patients receiving at least a single injection of SP-104, there were 21 (40%) patients experiencing at least one TEAE, 14 (27%) patients experiencing at least one treatment-related TEAE, 12 (23%) patients experiencing at least one treatment-related TEAE within 72 hours after first administration of SP-104. Notable AEs of special interest were nausea and headache within 72 hours after first administration of SP-104. SP-104 administered at night before bed resulted in a lower number of subjects with at least one AE (p = 0.0414), and an even lower number of subjects with at least one AE within 72 hours after the first administration of SP-140 when compared to the compared drug. There was a lower number of subjects with AEs of special interest within 72 hours after administration of SP-104 (n=9; 12 events) versus the compared drug (n=15; 20 events). Notable AEs of special interest observed within 72 hours after administration of the applicable drug are nausea (SP-104: n=0; the compared drug: n=3) and headache (SP-104: n=6; the compared drug: n=12). The study randomized subjects to one of two treatments followed by a washout period and then receipt of the other treatment, which allows all subjects to act as their own control. The study will support intellectual property, inform on clinical study design and contribute to safety characterization to support market applications. 29 We completed both studies in the second quarter of 2022. We plan to use data collected from these studies to support an Investigational New Drug application with the FDA, which is expected to enable further clinical development and initiation of a planned multi-center placebo-controlled registration trial in the field of fibromyalgia. The registration trial is designed to be a Phase 3, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter study that meets the regulatory requirements of an “adequate and well-controlled” study to establish the efficacy of SP-104 in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Depending on the outcomes, this registration trial alone may be efficient in supporting market approval of SP-104 or an additional Phase 3 study may be required. Medical Affairs Our Medical Affairs team includes in-house medical expertise, health economics and third-party payor support. The Medical Affairs team works with our clinical team to identify sites for clinical trials, support the investigator teams and develop publication plans for clinical and real-world ZTlido data and our product candidates. Our Medical Affairs team also works with Key Opinion Leaders, professional societies and patient advocacy groups to educate on and support the appropriate use of pain therapeutics, including topical pain products. Further, our Medical Affairs team provides our sales organization with therapeutic knowledge and product training. The Medical Affairs team and Promotional Review Committee review all promotional materials for scientific accuracy. The Medical Affairs team also develops lifecycle planning and works with our clinical team to determine registration or supportive studies, oversee post-approval studies and support investigator-sponsored trials. Manufacturing and Supply Chain We currently contract with third parties for the manufacture, assembly, testing, packaging, storage and distribution of our product. Our technical team has extensive pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, analytical, quality and distribution experience and is qualified and capable of managing manufacturing and supply chain operations. Our Quality System, Standard Operating Procedures and contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) comply with cGMP and regulatory requirements. We selected our CMOs for specific competencies having met our development, manufacturing, quality and the FDA regulatory requirements. These CMOs manufacture our clinical supplies and commercial batches. We currently have no plans to build our own manufacturing or distribution infrastructure. ZTlido ZTlido is a single-layer, drug-in-adhesive topical delivery system comprised of an adhesive material containing 36 mg lidocaine, which is applied to a pliable nonwoven cloth backing and covered with a polyethylene terephthalate film release liner. ZTlido is commercially manufactured for us by Oishi in Japan. We have exclusive worldwide rights to Oishi’s proprietary formulation and manufacturing technologies except with respect to Japan. ZTlido is manufactured using premixing and hot-melt mixing of various excipients and lidocaine, followed by cGMP compliant coating, lining, cutting and filling processes. ZTlido is packaged as a carton of 30 topical systems, into individual child-resistant envelopes. See the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “ Business - Material Agreements - Itochu and Oishi Product Development Agreement ” and “ Business - Material Agreements - Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement ” for additional information regarding the manufacturing and supply chain of ZTlido. Once production is complete, commercial product shipments are sent to the United States, where our exclusive third-party logistics distribution provider, Cardinal Health 105, LLC (“Cardinal Health 105”), ships them to temperature-controlled customer distribution centers, which are generally able to deliver finished product to retail pharmacies on the same day, or within 24 hours. We currently contract with multiple pharmaceutical distributors throughout the United States, including McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”), Cardinal Health 110, LLC (“Cardinal Health 110”) and AmerisourceBergen Corporation (“AmerisourceBergen”). Distributors have agreements in place that provide us with access to large retail chains, including CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid and Walmart, as well as independent pharmacies. In addition to all order fulfillment, Cardinal Health 105 performs the following services on our behalf: customer service, credit checks, invoicing, chargebacks, distributor fee for service, government reporting, customer returns, accounts receivable, inventory control, product security (DSCSA serialization) inquiries and recall assistance. In the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021 and in the first quarter of 2022, Cardinal Health 105 was our only customer and sales to Cardinal Health 105 represented all of our net revenue for such periods. As we continue to expand the commercialization of ZTlido, we expanded our direct distribution network to national and regional distributors and pharmacies in the second quarter of 2022. We currently hold wholesaler licenses and commenced selling directly to our main distributor customers as well as pharmacies from the second quarter of 2022. In April 2022, we discontinued our use of “title model” services provided by Cardinal Health 105, but expect that Cardinal Health 105 will continue to perform other third-party logistics services for us. SP-102 (SEMDEXA) 30 SP-102 is a Phase 3 sterile dexamethasone sodium phosphate injectable viscous gel drug product containing dexamethasone sodium phosphate equivalent to 10 mg dexamethasone in a pre-filled glass syringe with a 2 mL deliverable volume. SP-102 also contains sodium hyaluronate, which is a novel, biocompatible, viscosity- enhancing excipient and is listed in the European Pharmacopeia. Historically, we have purchased our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate, one of the excipients for SP-102, from Genzyme pursuant to a supply agreement, which terminated as of May 31, 2024. We anticipate that our current supply of sodium hyaluronate will be sufficient to satisfy our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate for at least 12 months following our expected commercial launch of SP-102 in 2027. We are currently in discussions with Sanofi, an affiliate of Genzyme, and are in the process of identifying and certifying new suppliers, in each case to fulfill our future supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate. SP-102 is manufactured by a single-source manufacturer, which supports the clinical development, including the completed Phase 3 clinical trial of SP-102. In March 2022, we announced final results of the Phase 3 clinical trial, satisfying the primary and key secondary endpoints. The manufacturing process is proprietary and includes trade secrets. We plan to engage our existing contract manufacturer, Lifecore, for the commercial production of SP-102, if approved. See the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “ Business of Semnur — Material Agreements — Lifecore Master Services Agreement ” for additional information regarding the manufacturing of our SP-102 product candidate. SP-103 SP-103 contains 5.4% lidocaine (108 mg lidocaine) and is manufactured for clinical supply by Oishi, using the same manufacturing processes as used for ZTlido. If our Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials are successful, we plan to submit the SP-103 manufacturing protocols in a supplemental new drug application. SP-104 We are developing SP-104, a novel low-dose, naltrexone hydrochloride delayed release formulation for treating fibromyalgia. SP-104 is 4.5 mg, low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed release capsule product in clinical development, for which Phase 1 studies were completed in the second quarter of 2022. It is manufactured by a contract manufacturer, Tulex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Tulex”), located in Cranbury, NJ. Competition Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. The large size and expanding scope of the pain management market makes it an attractive therapeutic area for biopharmaceutical businesses. Our potential competitors include pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies. Many of these companies have drug pipelines, readily available capital, and established research and development organizations. ZTlido and our product candidate, SP-103, if approved, face and will likely face competition from prescription, generic, and OTC topical lidocaine patches, including Lidoderm, generic lidocaine patches manufactured by Teva, Mylan and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and over-the-counter lidocaine patches. Additionally, SP-103, if approved, will likely compete with various opioid pain medications, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, particularly as we seek approval for the treatment of chronic neck pain. We launched ELYXYB for treatment of acute migraine pain. ELYXYB faces competition from other NSAID products, triptans and newly launched CGRP inhibitors. NSAIDs and triptans are well established for the treatment of migraine. We launched GLOPERBA, our liquid colchicine formulation, in June 2024. GLOPERBA will face competition from generic colchicine formulations, uric acid lowering products like alopurinol, and other products that are used for the prophylaxis treatment of gout. GLOPERBA is the only liquid colchicine product approved by the FDA. SP-102, if approved, has the potential to become the first FDA-approved epidural steroid product for the treatment of sciatica. While there are currently no FDA-approved ESIs indicated for the treatment of sciatica, we are aware of certain non-steroid product candidates in development. SP-102, if approved, will compete with various opioid pain medications, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and surgical procedures. Procedures may include nerve blocks and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulations. We may also face indirect competition from the off-label and unapproved use of branded and generic injectable steroids. With respect to our product candidate SP-104, while there are currently no formulations containing naltrexone in clinical development for the treatment of fibromyalgia, we are aware of certain non-opioid therapeutics currently in a late-stage Phase 3 pipeline containing two 505(b)(2) development programs. Therefore, we believe that SP-104 will likely face direct competition from these candidates. We expect that the market will become increasingly competitive in the future. Many of our competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs and have substantially greater financial resources than 31 we do, as well as significantly greater experience in: developing product candidates and technologies, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining the FDA and other regulatory approvals of product candidates, formulating and manufacturing product candidates and launching, marketing and selling product candidates. Additional mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. As a result, these companies may obtain regulatory approval more rapidly than we are able to and may be more effective in selling and marketing their products as well. Smaller or early-stage companies or generic or biosimilar pharmaceutical manufacturers may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we are currently developing or that we may develop. If approved, our product candidates will face competition from commercially available drugs as well as drugs that are in the development pipelines of our competitors and later enter the market. Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, receiving FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing medicines before we do. The key competitive factors affecting the success of ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB, SP-102, SP-103 and SP-104 are likely to be their clinical benefit, durability, tolerability, price, intellectual property protection, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Material Agreements Itochu and Oishi Product Development Agreement We are party to the Product Development Agreement with Oishi and Itochu (the “Developers”). Pursuant to the Product Development Agreement, the Developers agreed to develop, exclusively for us, lidocaine tape products, including ZTlido and SP-103 (the “Products”). Pursuant to the Product Development Agreement, we obtained the rights to market, sell and distribute the Products in global markets outside of Japan. In carrying out the development responsibilities, the Developers agreed to, among other things, (1) source and provide the active pharmaceutical ingredient for the Products for manufacturing, (2) develop a stable final dosage form of the Products suitable for regulatory approvals, (3) conduct product development activities necessary to support the filing of applications for regulatory approvals for the Products and (4) conduct manufacturing scale-up activities and preclinical studies for the Products. We are responsible for, among other things, (a) conducting all pivotal human clinical trials for the Products, (b) completing all regulatory filings, correspondence and meetings with the FDA or other applicable governmental authorities with respect to the Products and (c) commercially launching the Products. We maintain the ultimate responsibility and decision-making control with regard to the marketing and pricing of the Products. The parties agreed to cooperate in good faith to determine whether to seek or maintain patent protection with respect to the Products, the active pharmaceutical ingredient, any associated method of use, method of manufacturing, or any other invention that could reasonably be expected to affect the commercialization or value of the Products. The Developers have the first right to pursue patent protection for any invention by them. All parties will jointly agree on the appointment of the patent representatives in each country outside of Japan. Until the expiration or termination of the Product Development Agreement, the Developers granted us an exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, worldwide license (except with respect to Japan) under its current and future intellectual property rights relating to the Products and the lidocaine in such Products. As consideration for the Developers’ development obligations under the Product Development Agreement, we agreed to pay a contingent quarterly royalty between 25% and 35% to the Developers based on the net quarterly profits of the Products. In the event that the net profits of any of the first four calendar quarters after the commercial launch equals a negative amount (a “Net Loss”), we are allowed to carry over such Net Loss to apply against all future calendar quarters until such Net Loss is covered, all calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). Under the Product Development Agreement, if our total net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of ZTlido and SP-103 for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, the Developers have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our 32 net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 have not exceeded five percent of net sales. Accordingly, Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, neither Oishi nor Itochu has exercised its right of termination. Additionally, if we receive any licensing fees from any third-party sublicensees, we are obligated to pay the same proportions of such licensing fee to the Developers. The current term of the Product Development Agreement will continue until October 2, 2028, which is the 10th anniversary of the first commercial sale of ZTlido. Afterwards, the agreement will renew automatically for subsequent successive one-year renewal periods unless we or the Developers terminate it upon six months’ written notice. In addition, we or the Developers may terminate the Product Development Agreement if (1) the other party is in material breach of the agreement and the breach is not curable, or if the breach is curable and the breaching party has not cured such material breach within 180 days after notice requesting to cure; (2) the FDA determines that the formulation of the Products would not be eligible for FDA approval in the absence of efficacy studies, and the Developers are unable to address the efficacy study requirements despite good faith efforts; (3) the market conditions are such that (a) our total net profits of the Products are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of the Products for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, or (b) the Products’ economic viability is affected significantly as evidenced by documentation and substantial information by any external circumstances deemed detrimental to all parties as agreed to by us and the Developers, and the parties are unable to resolve the concerns under the foregoing clauses (a) and (b) after 30 days of good-faith discussion; (4) the parties fail to reach mutual agreement as to who will conduct the clinical studies and how the costs will be allocated; or (5) we or either one of the Developers are bankrupt or make assignment for the benefit of creditors. Additionally, we may terminate the Product Development Agreement if (i) any of the pivotal human clinical trials for any of the Products fail, or (ii) the FDA issues a “Refusal to File” for any of the Products’ regulatory approval application and, after reasonable consultation with the Developers, we believe that it is commercially unreasonable to re-file. The Developers may terminate the Product Development Agreement if we fail to file for regulatory approval for any of the Products within three months of the date on which all required components of the regulatory approval application are received by us. Under the Product Development Agreement, we and the Developers have agreed, subject to certain exceptions, to indemnify each other against any third-party liabilities arising out of (1) any breach of our respective representations, warranties or obligations under the Product Development Agreement, (2) any failure by either of us to comply with all applicable laws, or (3) our respective negligence or willful misconduct. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Product Development Agreement and its amendments in the forms filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the form of the agreement and its amendments for a complete understanding of all of their respective terms. Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement Effective February 16, 2017, Scilex Pharma entered into the Commercial Supply Agreement with Itochu and Oishi (the “Commercial Supply Agreement”). Pursuant to the Commercial Supply Agreement, Oishi agreed to manufacture, store, handle and perform quality control testing of the Products (as defined in the Product Development Agreement) at its facility in Japan. Itochu agreed to purchase Products from Oishi and handle the shipping of the Products. Both Oishi and Itochu agreed to provide us with certain technical support regarding the Products as reasonably requested by us, including but not limited to analytical test methods, method development, physical and chemical properties, and use of the Products. Under the Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement, we pay per item transfer prices for ZTlido, ZTlido professional samples and ZTlido placebo samples, in each case subject to certain minimum order quantities. We are required to provide a 12-month rolling purchase forecast of the estimated quantities of the Products in writing on a monthly basis. Oishi is required to promptly notify us and Itochu if it lacks the capacity to meet the forecast. All Products ordered by us will be in the form of a firm written purchase order. During the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we purchased inventory in the amount of $5.0 million and $8.2 million, respectively, under the Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement. The Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement will remain in effect until the termination of the Product Development Agreement. Additionally, either we or the Developers may terminate the Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement (1) if the other party is in material breach of the agreement and the breach is not substantially cured within 60 days after receiving written notice specifying the nature of the breach, or (2) in the event of any of the parties’ insolvency, bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. Any third-party claim arising out of a breach by a party of any representation, warranty or obligation under the Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement, or a failure by a party to comply with applicable laws, or the negligence or willful misconduct of a party, will be subject to and governed by the Product Development Agreement. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Itochu and Oishi Commercial Supply Agreement and its amendments in the forms filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the form of the agreement and its amendments for a complete understanding of all of their respective terms. 33 ELYXYB ® License and Commercialization Agreement On February 12, 2023, we acquired from BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (“BDSI”) and Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Collegium”, and together with BDSI, the “ELYXYB Sellers”) the rights to certain patents, trademarks, regulatory approvals, data, contracts and other rights related to ELYXYB Ò (celecoxib oral solution) and its commercialization in the United States and Canada (the “ELYXYB Territory”). As consideration for the acquisition, we assumed various rights and obligations under that certain asset purchase agreement, dated August 3, 2021 (the “DRL APA”), between BDSI and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (“DRL”), a company incorporated under the laws of India, including a license from DRL including an irrevocable, royalty-free, exclusive license to know-how and patents of DRL related to ELYXYB and necessary or used to exploit ELYXYB in the ELYXYB Territory. Additionally, under the DRL APA, the ELYXYB Sellers granted us an irrevocable, royalty-free, exclusive license to know-how related to ELYXYB and necessary or used to exploit ELYXYB in the ELYXYB Territory. No cash consideration was or will be payable to the ELYXYB Sellers for such acquisition; however, the obligations under the DRL APA that were assumed by us include obligations to pay royalties for sales of ELYXYB in the ELYXYB Territory for all indications and additional amounts if certain net sales and regulatory milestones are achieved. Romeg License and Commercialization Agreement On June 14, 2022 (the “Original Signing Date”), we entered into the Romeg License Agreement with Romeg, which agreement was subsequently amended on January 16, 2025. Under the Romeg License Agreement, among other things, Romeg granted us (1) a license, with the right to sublicense, under the patents and know-how specified therein to (a) commercialize a pharmaceutical product comprising liquid formulations of colchicine for the prophylactic treatment of gout in adult humans (the “Initial Licensed Product”) in the United States (including its territories) (the “Romeg U.S. Territory”), (b) develop other products comprising the Initial Licensed Product as an active pharmaceutical ingredient (together with the Initial Licensed Product, the “Licensed Products”) and commercialize any such products in the Romeg U.S. Territory and (c) manufacture Licensed Products anywhere in the world, solely for commercialization in the Romeg U.S. Territory; (2) an exclusive license, with right to sublicense, to use the trademark “GLOPERBA” and logos, designs, translations, and modifications thereof (collectively, the “Licensed Trademark”) in connection with the commercialization of the Initial Licensed Product solely in the Romeg U.S. Territory; and (3) pursuant to the amendment thereto, a license, with the right to (a) sublicense under the know-how and, if any, patents existing worldwide other than the Romeg U.S. Territory (the “Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory”), as specified therein, to develop, manufacture and commercialize Licensed Products in the Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory and (b) to use the Licensed Trademark in connection with the commercialization of the Licensed Products in the Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory. With respect to the foregoing clause (1), the license to know-how is exclusive for purposes of developing and commercializing Licensed Products in the Romeg U.S. Territory during the Romeg U.S. Territory Royalty Term, but is otherwise non-exclusive, and the license to patents is exclusive for purposes of developing and commercializing Licensed Products in the Romeg U.S. Territory until July 1, 2027 and, thereafter, is co-exclusive with Granules Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the Romeg U.S. Territory Royalty Term for such purposes. The Romeg U.S. Territory Royalty Term begins on the Original Signing Date and ends on the later of (i) expiration of the last to expire of the patents that covers the manufacture or commercialization of the Licensed Products in the Romeg U.S. Territory or (ii) the tenth anniversary of the Original Signing Date. With respect to the foregoing clause (3), the license to know-how patents (if any) is exclusive during the Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory Royalty Term, but is otherwise non-exclusive. The “Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory Royalty Term” begins on the date of the amendment agreement and ends on the tenth anniversary of such date. As consideration for the license under the Romeg License Agreement, we agreed to pay Romeg (1) an up-front payment of $2.0 million, (2) upon our achievement of certain net sales milestones, certain milestone payments in the aggregate amount of up to $13.0 million, (3) certain royalties in the mid-single digit percentage, based on annual net sales of the Licensed Products attributable to sales of the Licensed Products occurring in the Romeg U.S. Territory during the Romeg U.S. Territory Royalty Term, with a quarterly minimum royalty of $150,000, and (4) pursuant to the amendment thereto, (a) certain royalties in the low-single digit percentage, based on annual net sales of the Licensed Products attributable to sales of License Products in the Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory during the Romeg Ex-U.S. Territory Royalty Term and (b) a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable payment of $700,000. Pursuant to the amendment agreement, we also transferred to Romeg 779,371 shares of our Common Stock. The Romeg License Agreement will remain in effect until it is terminated in accordance with the terms thereof. We may terminate the Romeg License Agreement (1) upon written notice to Romeg, if we elect (or are required) to withdraw the Initial Licensed Product from the market as a result of serious adverse reactions from use of such product, which termination will be effective 30 days following the date of such notice or (2) at any time, without cause, upon written notice to Romeg, which termination will be effective 120 days following the date of such notice, provided that a termination fee of up to $2.0 million shall be paid to Romeg depending on when during the 10-year period following the date of the agreement any such termination notice set forth in the immediately preceding clause (2) has 34 been provided. Romeg may terminate the Romeg License Agreement (a) upon notice to us, if we fail to timely pay any milestone payment, percentage royalties or minimum quarterly royalties or fail to timely deliver the requisite quarterly report, which termination will be effective 30 days after the date of such notice, unless we have made such payment in full or delivered such quarterly report within such 30 day period; (b) immediately, if we challenge the licensed patents under any court action or proceeding or before any patent office or assist any third party to conduct any of these activities; or (c) by written notice to us if sales of the Licensed Products do not commence or continue within specified periods agreed to by the parties. In addition, either party may terminate the Romeg License Agreement (1) in the event the other party materially breaches the agreement, unless the breaching party has cured any such breach within 60 days after any notice thereof was provided or (2) in the event the other party (a) files in any court or agency a petition in bankruptcy or insolvency, (b) is served with an involuntary petition against it in any insolvency proceeding and such involuntary petition has not been stayed or dismissed within 90 days after its filing, or (c) makes an assignment of substantially all of its assets for the benefit of its creditors. The Romeg License Agreement contains customary reciprocal indemnification obligations for Romeg and us. Additionally, we agreed, subject to certain exceptions, to indemnify Romeg against any loss arising out of the manufacture or commercialization of any Licensed Product by or on behalf of us or our affiliates, marketing partners, sublicensees or subcontractors on or after the date of the license. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Romeg License Agreement (including the amendment thereto) in the forms filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the form of the agreements for a complete understanding of all of their terms. Lifecore Master Services Agreement On January 27, 2017, through our wholly owned subsidiary, Semnur, we entered into that certain Master Services Agreement (as amended, the “Lifecore Master Services Agreement”), with Lifecore Biomedical, LLC (“Lifecore”). Pursuant to the Lifecore Master Services Agreement, Lifecore is responsible for clinical trial material manufacturing and development services for SEMDEXA as set forth in each separate statement of work (each a “Lifecore Statement of Work”). The parties entered into a Lifecore Statement of Work on January 27, 2017, pursuant to which Lifecore agreed to provide, among other things, (1) project management support, (2) development services, (3) clinical trial materials, and (4) stability studies. We paid Lifecore for the development and clinical trial material manufacturing services, which was invoiced at the completion of each service. For the purposes of Lifecore’s development and clinical trial material manufacturing obligations, we granted Lifecore a nonexclusive, worldwide and royalty-free license under our owned or controlled intellectual property rights necessary to manufacture SP-102, without additional right, title or interest in our intellectual property. The Lifecore Master Services Agreement expires on December 31, 2028, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the terms of such agreement, or unless renewed further by the parties. Either party may terminate the Lifecore Master Services Agreement (1) if the other party is in material breach of the agreement and fails to cure such breach within 30 days of written notice, subject to certain exceptions; or (2) immediately upon written notice to the other party if the other party (a) becomes insolvent, (b) ceases to function as a going concern, (c) is convicted of or pleads guilty to a charge of violating any law relating to either party’s business, or (d) engages in any act which materially impairs goodwill associated with SEMDEXA or materially impairs the terminating party’s trademark or trade name. In addition, Lifecore may terminate the agreement if (i) we fail to pay past due invoices upon 30 days’ written notice, or (ii) we reject or fail to respond to a major change or minor change proposed by Lifecore that does not change SEMDEXA’s written and approved acceptance criteria. The Lifecore Master Services Agreement contains customary reciprocal indemnification obligations for Lifecore and Semnur. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Lifecore Master Services Agreement and the amendments thereto in the forms filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the form of the agreement and its amendments for a complete understanding of all of their respective terms. Semnur Merger Agreement On March 18, 2019, Legacy Scilex acquired Semnur pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Semnur (as amended, the “Semnur Merger Agreement”), Sigma Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Legacy Scilex (“Sigma Merger Sub”), Fortis Advisors LLC, solely as representative of the holders of Semnur equity (the “Semnur Equityholders’ Representative”), and for limited purposes, Sorrento. Pursuant to the Semnur Merger Agreement, Sigma Merger Sub merged with and into Semnur (the “Semnur Merger”), with Semnur surviving as Legacy Scilex’s wholly owned subsidiary. 35 Pursuant to the Semnur Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the conditions contained therein, Legacy Scilex also agreed to pay former holders of Semnur’s capital stock (the “Semnur Equityholders”) up to $280.0 million in aggregate contingent cash consideration based on the achievement of certain milestones (which amount is expected to be charged back to Semnur through an intercompany arrangement), comprised of a $40.0 million payment that will be due upon obtaining the first approval of a NDA of a Semnur product by the FDA and additional payments that will be due upon the achievement of certain amounts of net sales of Semnur products, as follows: (i) a $20.0 million payment upon the achievement of $100.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product, (ii) a $20.0 million payment upon the achievement of $250.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product, (iii) a $50.0 million payment upon the achievement of $500.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product, and (iv) a $150.0 million payment upon the achievement of $750.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, none of the foregoing payments have been triggered. The Semnur Merger Agreement also provided that following the consummation of Legacy Scilex’s first bona fide equity financing with one or more third-party financing sources on an arms’ length basis with gross proceeds to Legacy Scilex of at least $40.0 million, certain of the former Semnur optionholders will be paid cash in lieu of: (i) the 352,972 shares of Legacy Scilex Common Stock otherwise issuable to such former Semnur optionholders pursuant to the Semnur Merger Agreement, and (ii) any shares that would otherwise be issued to such former Semnur optionholders upon release of shares held in escrow pursuant to the Semnur Merger Agreement, with such shares in each case valued at $1.16 per share. The Semnur optionholders subsequently agreed, under the terms of the Exchange Agreement (as defined and described below) to forego the foregoing right to any such payment in exchange for the right to participate in the Share Exchange (as defined below). In March 2019, the Semnur Equityholders that received $55.0 million of shares of Common Stock (47,039,315 shares issued and 352,972 shares issuable, valued at $1.16 per share) (the “the Stock Consideration”) were required to sign an Exchange and Registration Rights Agreement with Legacy Scilex (as amended, the “Exchange Agreement”). Pursuant to the Exchange Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the conditions contained therein, if within 18 months following the closing of the Semnur Merger, 100% of the outstanding equity of Legacy Scilex had not been acquired by a third party or Legacy Scilex had not entered into a definitive agreement with respect to, or otherwise consummated, a firmly underwritten offering of Legacy Scilex capital stock on a major stock exchange that met certain requirements, then holders of the Stock Consideration could collectively elect to exchange, during the 60-day period commencing the date that was the 18-month anniversary of the closing of the Semnur Merger (the “Share Exchange”), the Stock Consideration for shares of Sorrento’s common stock with a value of $55.0 million based on a price per share of Sorrento’s common stock equal to the greater of (a) the 30-day trailing volume weighted average price of one share of Sorrento’s common stock as reported on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) as of the consummation of the Share Exchange and (b) $5.55 (subject to adjustment for any stock dividend, stock split, stock combination, reclassification or similar transaction) (the “Exchange Price”). Pursuant to an amendment to the Exchange Agreement entered into by Sorrento and the Semnur Equityholders’ Representative on September 28, 2020, on October 9, 2020, Sorrento paid $55.0 million in cash to the Semnur Equityholders in lieu of issuing $55.0 million of shares of Sorrento’s common stock at the Exchange Price. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Semnur Merger Agreement (including the amendment thereto) in the forms filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the Semnur Merger Agreement (including the amendment thereto) for a complete understanding of all of their respective terms. Aardvark Asset Purchase Agreement In April 2021, Sorrento entered into an asset purchase agreement (the “Aardvark Asset Purchase Agreement”) with Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aardvark”), pursuant to which, among other things, Sorrento acquired Aardvark’s Delayed Burst Release Low Dose Naltrexone (DBR-LDN) asset and intellectual property rights, for the treatment of chronic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic post-COVID syndrome (collectively, the “SP-104 Assets”), which includes a Statement of Work dated November 18, 2020 (the “Tulex Statement of Work”), pursuant to which Tulex agreed to, among other things, develop, test and manufacture clinical supplies of SP-104 for Sorrento. Subsequent to the acquisition, Sorrento designated Legacy Scilex to lead all development efforts related to SP-104 and on May 12, 2022, Legacy Scilex and Sorrento entered into a bill of sale and assignment and assumption agreement (the “Bill of Sale”), pursuant to which Sorrento sold, conveyed, assigned and transferred to Legacy Scilex all of its rights, title and interest in and to the SP-104 Assets (including PCT/US2021/053645 and all patents and patent applications that claim priority rights thereto) and Legacy Scilex assumed all of Sorrento’s rights, liabilities and obligations under the Aardvark Asset Purchase Agreement (the “SP-104 Acquisition”). As consideration for the SP-104 Acquisition, Legacy Scilex issued a promissory note in the aggregate principal amount of $5,000,000 to Sorrento (the “Promissory Note”). The Promissory Note matures seven years from the date of issuance and bears interest at the rate equal to the lesser of (a) 2.66% simple interest per annum and (b) the maximum interest rate permitted under law. The Promissory Note is payable in cash, shares of Common Stock (any shares so issued, the “Consideration Shares”) or any combination thereof, at Legacy Scilex’s sole discretion, and may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Legacy Scilex also agreed to file with the 36 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a resale registration statement, relating to the resale by Sorrento of any Consideration Shares that may be issued to Sorrento, within 60 days of the issuance of such Consideration Shares. As the successor to the Aardvark Asset Purchase Agreement, Legacy Scilex is obligated to pay Aardvark (i) $3,000,000, upon initial approval by the FDA of a new drug application for the LDN Formulation (as defined in the Aardvark Asset Purchase Agreement) (which amount may be paid in shares of Common Stock or cash, in Legacy Scilex’s sole discretion) (the “Development Milestone Payment”) and (ii) $20,000,000, in cash, upon achievement of certain net sales by Legacy Scilex of a commercial product that uses the LDN Formulation (the “Commercial Product”). Legacy Scilex will also pay Aardvark certain royalties in the single digits based on percentages of annual net sales by Legacy Scilex of a commercial product that uses the LDN Formulation. The royalty percentage is subject to reduction in certain circumstances. Royalties are due for so long as Commercial Product is covered by a valid patent in the country of sale or for ten years following the first commercial sale of the Commercial Product, whichever is longer. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, none of the foregoing payments have been triggered. In connection with its acquisition of the SP-104 Assets, Legacy Scilex has agreed that if it issues any shares of Common Stock in respect of the Development Milestone Payment, Legacy Scilex will prepare and file one or more registration statements with the SEC for the purpose of registering for resale such shares and is required to file such registration statement with the SEC within 60 days following the date on which any such shares are issued. Tien-Li Lee, M.D., a former member of our board of directors (the “Board”), is the founder, chief executive officer and a member of the board of directors of Aardvark. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Aardvark Asset Purchase Agreement, Bill of Sale and Promissory Note in the forms filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the forms of these agreements for a complete understanding of all of their respective terms. Tulex Master Services Agreement As described above, in connection with the SP-104 Acquisition, Legacy Scilex acquired the Tulex Statement of Work, pursuant to which Tulex, among other things, develops, tests and manufactures clinical supplies of SP-104 for Legacy Scilex. The Tulex Statement of Work is governed by the terms of a master services agreement (the “Tulex Master Services Agreement”). The Tulex Master Services Agreement was novated to Legacy Scilex on June 15, 2022 and will remain in effect until five years after the effective date, unless terminated early by either party. Either party may terminate the Tulex Master Services Agreement or a Tulex Statement of Work by written notice (1) if the other party is in material breach of the agreement or a Tulex Statement of Work and fails to cure such breach within 15 days after receipt of notice of such breach (or such other time period expressly stated in the applicable Tulex Statement of Work) or (2) in the event of the other party’s insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership, or a failure to remove any insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership proceedings within ten days from the date of institution of such proceedings. In addition, we may terminate the agreement or any Tulex Statement of Work (1) without cause upon 30 days prior written notice to Tulex or (2) immediately upon written notice in the event Tulex is dissolved or undergoes a change in control. A termination or expiration of a single Tulex Statement of Work will not cause the automatic termination of the agreement or of any other Tulex Statement of Work. Each party under the Tulex Master Services Agreement agreed to indemnify the other party, its affiliates and each of their respective officers, directors, employees, contractors and agents against any third-party liabilities arising out of (1) such party’s breach of the Tulex Master Services Agreement or a Tulex Statement of Work or (2) the negligence or willful misconduct on the part of such party, its officers, directors, employees, agents or other representatives in connection with the Tulex Master Services Agreement. The foregoing is a summary of the material terms of the Tulex Master Services Agreement in the form filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the form of the agreement for a complete understanding of all of its terms. Intellectual Property Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our drug products, product candidates, and related technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our novel adhesion and delivery technology, inventions, improvements, drug products, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio is intended to cover our product candidates, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture, and any other inventions that are commercially important to our business. We also rely on trade secret protection of our confidential information and know-how relating to our novel adhesion and delivery technology, platforms and product candidates. 37 Generally, patents are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. In certain instances, the patent term can be adjusted to recapture a portion of delay by the PTO in examining the patent application or extended to account for term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, or both. We cannot provide any assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending or future applications or that any patents will adequately protect our product or product candidates. Our patent portfolio, consisting of owned and/or licensed IP as of December 31, 2024 contains approximately 27 issued and unexpired U.S. patents and nine pending U.S. patent applications. Our portfolio also includes certain foreign counterparts of these patents and patent applications including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan, and certain countries within the European Patent Convention. With respect to ZTlido and SP-103, our patents and patent applications cover compositions and methods of treatment. We license eight issued U.S. patents and two pending U.S. patent applications relating to lidocaine topical system compositions and methods of treating pain with lidocaine topical system compositions. The patents are U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,283,174, 9,925,264, 9,931,403, 10,765,749, 10,765,640, 11,278,623, 11,786,455, and 11,793,766, all of which expire in 2031. With respect to GLOPERBA, our licensed patents include U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,907,751, 10,226,423, 10,383,820, 10,383,821, and 11,672,759, which relate to liquid colchicine formulations for oral administration and associated methods of use. U.S. Pat. No. 10,226,423 expires in 2037. The remaining patents related to GLOPERBA expire in 2036. With respect to ELYXYB, our patents and patent applications relate to liquid oral celecoxib formulations and associated methods of use. The issued patents include U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,572,819, 9,795,620, 9,949,990, 10,376,527, 10,799,517, 10,722,456, and 12,168,000. U.S. Pat. No. 12,168,000 expires in 2041. The remaining patents related to ELYXYB expire in 2036. With respect to our product candidate SEMDEXA, our patents and patent applications that we own include formulations and methods of treatment. The patents are U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,500,284, 10,117,938, and 11,020,485, all of which expire in 2036. With respect to SP-104, our pending U.S. patent application covers oral delayed burst formulations of low-dose naloxone or naltrexone and related methods of treatment. We continue to seek to maximize the scope of our patent protection for all our programs. All statements regarding the expiration of our owned and licensed patents are calculated as 20 years after the earliest nonprovisional priority date and do not account for any patent term adjustment (“PTA”), regulatory extension, or terminal disclaimers not already in force as of December 31, 2024; these calculations also assume that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely. We believe that we have certain know-how and trade secrets relating to our technology and product candidates. We rely on trade secrets to protect certain aspects of our technology related to our current and future product candidates. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, service providers, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Information We file trademark applications and pursue registrations in the United States and abroad when appropriate. We own registered U.S. trademarks for the marks “SCILEX,” “ZTlido,” “ELYXYB,” and “RESPONSIBLE BY DESIGN.” We also own pending trademark applications for “SEMNUR PHARMACEUTICALS,” “SCILEX BIO,” and “SEMDEXA” in the United States. We also license the GLOPERBA trademark as discussed in relation to the Romeg License Agreement described above. We also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. Our policy is to require each of our employees, consultants and advisors to execute a confidentiality and inventions assignment agreement before beginning their employment, consulting or advisory relationship with us. The agreements generally provide that the individual must keep confidential and not disclose to other parties any confidential information developed or learned by the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us except in limited circumstances. These agreements generally also provide that we will own all inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us. SEMDEXA benefits from our substantial intellectual property portfolio and other technical barriers to entry for potential competitors. Historically, we have purchased our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate, one of the excipients for SP-102, from Genzyme pursuant to a supply agreement, which terminated as of May 31, 2024. We anticipate that our current supply of sodium hyaluronate will be sufficient to satisfy our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate for at least 12 months following our expected commercial launch of SP-102 in 2027. We are currently in discussions with Sanofi, an affiliate of 38 Genzyme, and are in the process of identifying and certifying new suppliers, in each case to fulfill our future supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate. Our complex manufacturing process, specialized equipment and know-how for sterile viscous product candidates are also key to our competitive edge. We believe that our competitors will be required to conduct lengthy and costly preclinical and clinical trials to establish products with comparable tolerability profiles and clinical benefit to SEMDEXA. Government Regulation and Product Approval Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local levels, and in other countries and jurisdictions, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, sales, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are marketing and developing. SP-102, SP-103, SP-104 and any other product candidate that we develop must be approved by the FDA or otherwise authorized for marketing before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the corresponding foreign regulatory agencies before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. U.S. Drug Development Process In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or its products to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as imposition of a clinical hold, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, inspection scrutiny, issuance of warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, or reimbursements, restitution, disgorgement of profits or other civil or criminal penalties. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”) or other applicable regulations; • completion of FDA’s drug substance (Part 210), drug product (Part 211), combination of product and device (Part 820) and all Module 3, Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control (“CMC”), and the current Good Manufacturing Practices(“cGMP”) requirements for NDA filing; • submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”), which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • approval by an institutional review board (“IRB”) covering each clinical site before each trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the laws and regulations pertaining to the conduct of human clinical trials, collectively referred to as Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use; • submission to the FDA of an NDA or other marketing application (collectively, an “NDA”), for a proposed new drug, including its specific formulation and labeling; • satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable; • satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug substance, drug product, packaging components and device are produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, manufacturing, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • potential FDA audit of the preclinical study and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA; and • FDA review and approval of the NDA prior to any commercial marketing, sale, distribution or shipment of the drug. 39 Before testing novel compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the drug candidate enters the preclinical testing stage, also referred to as preclinical studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the drug candidate. The conduct of the preclinical studies must comply with federal laws and requirements including GLPs. The IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, and any available clinical data or literature, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the first phase of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical studies may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance, or for additional reasons. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trial. Clinical trials involve the administration of the drug candidate to healthy subjects or patients with the target disease under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by the trial sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, subject selection and exclusion criteria, dosing procedures, and the parameters to be used to collect data and to monitor subject safety. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and timely safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for suspected adverse reactions that are serious and unexpected and other safety related findings. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with applicable statutes, the FDA’s regulations and GCP requirements. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB 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 also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to and signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until it is completed. In some instances, additional oversight boards, such as a data safety monitoring board, are required to evaluate interim data and determine whether a study should continue or be modified or terminated. Information about many clinical trials is required to be publicly reported on www.ClinicalTrials.gov or similar databases. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1 . The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing may be conducted only in patients having the specific disease. • Phase 2 . The drug is evaluated in a 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 for patients having the specific disease. • Phase 3 . The drug is administered to an expanded patient population in adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to generate sufficient data to statistically confirm the safety and efficacy of the product for potential approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Generally, at least two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA. In some cases, the FDA may approve a drug based on the results of a single adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 trial for excellent design and which provided highly reliable and statistically strong evidence of important clinical benefit. Post-approval studies, also referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial 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 as part of the approval process. Progress reports detailing the status of drug development and 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 suspected adverse reactions that are serious and unexpected (including increased rate of occurrence of such adverse reactions), findings from other studies that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug, or any findings from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects or patients. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not yield positive results, or may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to study subjects. 40 During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, the end of Phase 3 and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of Phase 2 meeting to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the Phase 3 clinical trials or manufacturing process validation and testing and their pre-NDA meeting that they believe will support approval of the new drug. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as validate a process for commercial manufacturing the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The commercial manufacturing process must be capable of consistently and continuously producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop appropriate methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. FDA Review and Approval Processes The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials for the claimed indications are incorporated into an NDA. The FDA may grant deferrals for the development and submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers after the initial submission of a pediatric study plan following an end of Phase 2 meeting. In addition, descriptions of the manufacturing process and controls, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are required to be submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees and a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard, original NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the drug approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) is necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without a REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will generally inspect the facilities at which the product is to be manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified 41 in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may require post-approval studies, referred to as Phase 4 testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a product’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA administers a number of different programs that enable the agency and sponsors in various ways to expedite the development or agency review of a new drug product. Among these, the FDA has a fast track designation that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug products that meet certain criteria. New drugs are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. As an example of the modified processes available to a fast track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of other NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals. In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform additional adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-use submission of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act established a category of drugs referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be eligible to receive breakthrough therapy designation. A sponsor may seek the FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will work with the sponsor to expedite the development and review of such drug. With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints. 42 Post-Approval Requirements Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown risks or problems with a product may result in labeling changes, restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, certain manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP regulations and other laws and regulations. In addition, the FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. Any drug products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences or quality issues with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, satisfaction of post-approval requirements or commitments, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. These promotion and advertising requirements include, among other things, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, prohibitions against promoting drugs for uses, or in patient populations, that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling, which is known as “off-label use,” rules for conducting industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with post-approval requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, enforcement letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. 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, manufacturer or product to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Hatch-Waxman Amendments Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of NDAs that may be submitted to request marketing authorization for a new drug, the first being a 505(b)(1) NDA. A 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness. A 505(b)(2) NDA likewise contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness relevant to a product, but some of the data are not owned by or licensed to the applicant. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for generic versions of approved drug products through the submission of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”). An ANDA generally provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form, and with the same labeling and route of administration as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants are required to conduct bioequivalence testing to confirm chemical and therapeutic equivalence to the branded reference drug. Generic versions of drugs can often, and sometimes must, be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the branded reference drug. A 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant, and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Additional preclinical and clinical data may also be submitted. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, or for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant. Upon submission of an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA, an applicant must certify to the FDA at least one of the following (1) no patent information on the drug product that is relied upon by the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA (known as the reference drug) has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV Certification. If the NDA holder for the reference drug or patent owner(s) asserts a patent challenge to the Paragraph IV Certification, the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the Paragraph IV Certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time 43 depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s or patent owner’s decision to initiate patent litigation. In addition to, and distinct from the patent protection provisions, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments establish periods of regulatory exclusivity for certain approved drug products, during which the FDA cannot approve (or in some cases accept) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that relies on the branded reference drug. For example, the holder of an NDA may obtain five years of exclusivity upon approval of a new drug containing a new chemical entity that has not been previously approved by the FDA. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide three years of marketing exclusivity to the holder of an NDA (including a 505(b)(2) NDA) for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical trials (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. This three-year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs that include the innovation that required the new clinical data, but generally allows the approval for non-protected characteristics and labeling. Third-Party Payor Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, sales of a product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for the product. Third-party payors include government payor programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication, and which can change over time. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs, in order for the company’s products to be considered as a formulary option. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered by individual payors to be medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that a preferred formulary position or an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. The cost of pharmaceuticals continues to generate substantial governmental and third-party payor interest. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations and additional legislative proposals. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. Adoption of such controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as our products and the product candidates that we are developing and could adversely affect our net revenue and results. See the discussion below under “ U.S. Healthcare Reform” , and regarding the Inflation Reduction Act for further information. Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the European Economic Area (“EEA”) (which is currently comprised of the 27 Member States of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some countries in the EEA operate positive and negative list systems under which some medicinal products are selected for coverage (positive list) and others are explicitly listed as excluded from reimbursement (negative list). To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these EEA countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product to currently available therapies. Other EEA countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicinal products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. 44 U.S. Healthcare Reform In the United States there have been, and continue to be, proposals by the federal government, state governments, regulators and third-party payors to control or manage the increased costs of healthcare and, more generally, to reform the U.S. healthcare system. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2020 (the “ACA”) was enacted, which is intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms, and which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, (1) subjected therapeutic biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars by creating a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products, (2) prescribed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, (3) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, (4) established annual nondeductible fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, (5) established 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 the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D, (6) expanded 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 individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, (7) expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Public Health Service Act program, (8) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research, and (9) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, Congressional and Administrative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, legislation affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA has been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and JOBS Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”) included a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the “BBA”), among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owned by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. On June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, former President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. In addition, on August 16, 2022, former President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 into law, which, among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The Inflation Reduction Act also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how additional healthcare reform measures of the Trump administration or other efforts, if any, to modify or invalidate the ACA or its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, will impact our business. Any health care reform measures will likely take time to unfold, and could have an impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or other policy or the impact of potential legislation or other policy on us. Other legislative and administrative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, in connection with subsequent legislation, reduced Medicare payments to providers, on average, by 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020, through May 31, 2022, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The law provides for 1% Medicare sequestration in the second quarter of 2022 and allows the full 2% sequestration thereafter until 2030. To offset the temporary suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2030, the sequestration will be 2.25% for the first half of the year, and 3% in the second half of the year. Moreover, on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further 45 reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. If federal spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may impact the ability of relevant agencies to continue to function at current levels. Amounts allocated to federal grants and contracts may be reduced or eliminated. These reductions may also impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing, and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any products we may develop. Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. On May 16, 2019, CMS adopted a final rule that, among other things, will require Part D plans to adopt Real Time Benefit Tools that are capable of integrating with electronic prescribing or electronic health record systems and have the capability to inform prescribers when lower-cost alternative therapies are available under a beneficiary’s prescription drug benefit. Similarly, since 2021, Part D Explanation of Benefits transmittals to members are required to inform Part D beneficiaries about drug prices and lower cost therapeutic alternatives. On August 16, 2022, former President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which among other things, contains two specific provisions affecting pricing for drugs and biologics. The first provision allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. The legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also caps Medicare beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket drug expenses at $2,000. The second provision imposes a requirement that pharma manufacturers provide a rebate to Medicare, if the manufacturer increases price at a rate higher than the measured inflation rate. Medicaid has had a rebate program for several years, but Medicare did not. The intent is to limit price increases. The new rebate applies to drugs covered by Medicare under Part B or Part D. The rebate obligation applies if the average sales price (for Part B) or average manufacturers price (for Part D) of a single source drug or biologic increases more than the rate of inflation (as measured by the index for urban consumers). The rebate amount is the total number of units sold in Medicare coverage multiplied by the amount by which the price exceeds the inflation adjusted price. The base year against which the inflation adjustment is measured is 2021. If the price exceeds the inflation adjusted price, the difference is multiplied by the units sold in Medicare and that amount is to be rebated. A failure to pay the rebate is subject to a penalty of 125% of the original rebate amount. The provision for Part D takes effect in 2022, with rebates to be paid beginning in 2023. The provision for Part B takes effect in 2023. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. In some cases, states appear interested in public policy designed to encourage drug importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. We expect that other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm our future revenue. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Other U.S. 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, 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. For example, various activities, including but not limited to sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs, must comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act and similar state laws, each as amended. Failure to comply with such requirements could potentially result in substantial penalties to us. Even if we structure our programs with the intent of compliance with such laws, there can be no certainty that we would not need to defend against enforcement or litigation, in light of the fact that there is significant enforcement interest in pharmaceutical companies in the United States, and some of the applicable laws are quite broad in scope. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits any person, including a pharmaceutical manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a 46 federal healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. The term “remuneration” is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain business arrangements from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from federal Anti-Kickback Statute liability. The government can establish a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute without proving that a person or entity had actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. Additionally, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs in at least some cases, and do not contain safe harbors. The federal False Claims Act imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids, or decreases an obligation to pay money to the government. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, the number of suits brought by private individuals has increased dramatically. In addition, various states have enacted false claims laws analogous to the False Claims Act. Many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payor and not merely a federal healthcare program. There are many potential bases for liability under the False Claims Act. Liability arises, primarily, when an entity knowingly submits, or causes another to submit, a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The False Claims Act has been used to assert liability on the basis of inadequate care, kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper promotion of off-label uses (i.e., uses not expressly approved by the FDA in a drug’s label), and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to the services rendered. Our activities relating to the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement of our products, and the sale and marketing of our products and our service arrangements or data purchases, among other activities, may be subject to scrutiny under these laws. We are unable to predict whether we would be subject to actions under the False Claims Act or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions. However, the cost of defending such claims, as well as any sanctions imposed, could adversely affect our financial performance. The healthcare fraud provisions under the U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (“HIPAA”) impose criminal liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private third-party payors, or falsifying or covering up a material fact or making any materially false or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. We may be subject to, or our marketing activities may be limited by, data privacy and security law and regulation promulgated by both the U.S. federal government and the U.S. states in which we conduct our business. For example, under HIPAA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services imposes upon “covered entities” (broadly, healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses) and their respective “business associates” (individuals or entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information on behalf of a covered entity) the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules which include privacy obligations; requirements to implement appropriate administrative, physical and technical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of electronic protected health information; and breach response notification obligations. Although we are neither a covered entity nor business associate, and therefore not subject to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, we must monitor developments with these requirements for changing obligations that may apply to us. The Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) also requires companies to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure and to make accurate statements regarding how they secure personal information under their custody or control, such as in a privacy notice. The FTC also expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of personal information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve data security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information, which we process, is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. Violations of the foregoing FTC requirements may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”). While we do not intend to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the FTC has the power to bring enforcement actions based on the FTC’s interpretation of public privacy statements. Further, events that we cannot fully control, such as data breaches, may also result in civil penalties, FTC 47 enforcement or enforcement by U.S. state attorneys general or other regulators. Various U.S. states have implemented privacy laws and regulations that regulate the use and disclosure of health information and other personal information. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act and its implementing regulations (the “CCPA”), established a privacy framework for covered businesses by, among other items, expanding the definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for consumers who are California residents, imposing rules on the collection of personal information from minors, and creating a statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA, including for failure to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. Penalties for violations of the CCPA include civil penalties and may result in related legal claims. The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), most provisions of which became operative on January 1, 2023, introduced significant amendments to the CCPA and established and funded a dedicated California privacy regulator, the California Privacy Protection Agency. Several other states have implemented similar consumer privacy laws that took effect in the past year or will take effect in the near future. Further, Washington’s My Health My Data Act, taking effect July 1, 2024, imposes requirements specific to consumer health data. The foregoing U.S. state privacy laws impose many similar obligations as the CCPA on our processing of personal information. Other U.S. states are considering similar privacy legislation, and industry organizations regularly adopt and advocate for new standards in these areas. The uncertainty, ambiguity, complexity, and potential inconsistency surrounding the implementation and interpretation of the CCPA and other enacted or forthcoming U.S. state privacy laws exemplify the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to the privacy, security and confidentiality of personal information and protected health information. We may be subject to fines, penalties, or private actions in the event of non-compliance with such laws. Our activities outside of the U.S. implicate local, state, provincial, and national data protection standards, impose additional compliance requirements and generate additional risks of enforcement for non-compliance. Such laws may also restrict the access, use and disclosure of patient health information abroad. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws, to protect against security breaches and hackers, or to remediate issues caused by such breaches. Compliance with these laws is challenging, constantly evolving, time consuming, and requires a flexible privacy framework and substantial resources. Compliance efforts will likely be an increasing and substantial cost in the future. The U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to CMS information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. In addition to this federal requirement, a number of individual states and foreign jurisdictions require detailed reporting and often public disclosures concerning transfers of value to physicians, other health care providers and family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations are extended to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Compliance with such requirements may require investment in infrastructure to ensure that tracking is performed properly, and some of these laws result in the public disclosure of various types of payments and relationships. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, or register their sales representatives, as well as prohibiting pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and prohibiting certain other sales and marketing practices. These laws may affect our sales, marketing and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. If we fail to track and report as required by these laws or otherwise comply with these laws, we could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state and federal authorities. Where our activities involve foreign government officials, they may also potentially be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). If we seek to have a product paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid programs or Medicare Part B, various obligations, including government price reporting, are required under the Medicaid rebate provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, each as amended, which generally require products to be offered at substantial rebates/discounts to such programs and certain purchasers. Government price reporting may also be required with respect to average sales price, which serves as the basis of reimbursement under Medicare Part B. In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Many of our current as well as possible future activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. We must also comply with laws that require clinical trial registration and reporting of clinical trial results on the publicly available clinical trial databank maintained by the National Institutes of Health at www.ClinicalTrials.gov. We are subject to various environmental, health and safety regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous substances. From time to time, and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous materials. 48 Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals. U.S. Marketing Exclusivity Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity . Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain applications of other companies seeking to reference another company’s NDA. If the new drug is a new chemical entity subject to an NDA, the FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. This definition is currently under FDA review. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, such an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, such as new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Pediatric Exclusivity . Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to any existing exclusivity period or patent term. This six-month exclusivity may be granted by the FDA based on the completion of a pediatric clinical trial in accordance with provisions of the FDCA. Europe/Rest of World Government Regulation In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials, pricing and reimbursement, anti-bribery, advertising and promotion, data privacy and security and any commercial sales and distribution of our future products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EEA, for example, a clinical trial application (“CTA”) must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (the “Clinical Trials Directive”) and the related national implementing provisions of the relevant individual EEA country’s requirements, the clinical trial described in that CTA may proceed. In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (the “Clinical Trials Regulation”) was adopted. The Clinical Trials Regulation entered into force on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation is directly applicable in all the EEA countries, repealing the prior Clinical Trials Directive. The new Clinical Trials Regulation allows a sponsor to start and conduct a clinical trial in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive during a transitional period of one year after the application date, i.e. January 31, 2022. The transition period for the trials ongoing at the moment of applicability will be a maximum of three years after the date of application of the Clinical Trials Regulation. Clinical trials authorized under the current Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023 can 49 continue to be conducted under the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. An application to transition ongoing trials from the current Clinical Trials Directive to the new Clinical Trials Regulation will need to be submitted and authorized in time before the end of the transitional period. The new Clinical Trials Regulation is intended to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EEA. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure through a single entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided into two parts. For other countries outside of the EEA, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials vary from country to country. Internationally, clinical trials are generally required to be conducted in accordance with GCP, applicable regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction and the medical ethics principles that have their origins in the Declaration of Helsinki. In the EEA, medicinal products can be commercialized only after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (“MA”). There are several procedures for requesting marketing authorization which can be more efficient than applying for authorization on a country-by-country basis. There is a “centralized” procedure allowing submission of a single marketing authorization application to the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”). If the EMA issues a positive opinion, the European Commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that is valid in all EEA countries. The “centralized” procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases. The “centralized” procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EEA. There is also a “decentralized” procedure allowing companies to file identical applications to several EEA countries simultaneously for product candidates that have not yet been authorized in any EEA country and a “mutual recognition” procedure allowing companies that have a product already authorized in one EEA country to apply for that authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EEA countries. Under the “decentralized” procedure, an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the EEA countries in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). If the RMS proposes to authorize the product, and the other EEA countries do not raise objections, the product is authorized in all the EEA countries where the authorization was sought. Before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EEA countries make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. In many countries outside the United States, procedures to obtain price approvals, coverage and reimbursement can take considerable time after the receipt of a MA. Many EEA countries periodically review their reimbursement of medicinal products, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. In addition, we expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EEA countries will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some EEA countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EEA countries, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process, which is currently governed by national laws in each EEA country, is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EEA countries. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EEA countries, although the HTA Regulation, which aims to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EEA, will apply from January 12, 2025. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EEA countries that represent significant markets, our anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for our products in the EEA could be negatively affected. Outside the United States, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of EEA countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. In the EEA, the advertising and promotion of our products are subject to laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics 50 (“SmPC”), as approved by the competent authorities in connection with a marketing authorization approval. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EEA. Other applicable laws at the EEA level and in the individual EU Member States also apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products, including laws that prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products and further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and to health care professionals. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EEA could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. In addition to data privacy and security regulations in the United States, we may be subject to, or our marketing activities may be limited by, data privacy and security regulations in the EEA, Switzerland, or the United Kingdom (“UK”), where the legislative and regulatory landscape continues to evolve. There has been increased regulator attention to privacy and data security issues that could potentially affect our business, including through legislation such as the EEA General Data Protection Regulation (“EEA GDPR”) and UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR,” and together, the “GDPR”), which each imposes strict obligations on the processing of personal data, including the transfer of personal data from the EEA, Switzerland, or UK to third countries that the European Commission has determined does not ensure an adequate level of protection, such as the United States. If we violate the GDPR, we may face significant penalties of up to EUR 10,000,000 or 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover, or for more serious violations, up to EUR 20,000,000 or 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover. The GDPR and other EEA and UK data privacy and security regulations generally restrict the transfer of personal data from the EEA, United Kingdom and Switzerland, to the United States and certain other third countries unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal data. One of the primary safeguards on which companies may rely to import or export personal data from had been the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield was invalidated in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in a case known as “ Schrems II .” Following this decision, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (the “FDPIC”) announced that the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield does not provide adequate safeguards for the purposes of personal data transfers from Switzerland to third countries that are deemed as not providing adequate protection, including the United States. While the FDPIC does not have authority to invalidate the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield regime, the FDPIC’s announcement casts doubt on the viability of the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield as a compliance mechanism for Swiss-U.S. data transfers. The CJEU’s decision in Schrems II also raised questions about whether one of the primary alternatives to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, namely the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, can lawfully be used for personal data transfers from Europe to the United States or other third countries that are not the subject of an adequacy decision of the European Commission. While the CJEU upheld the adequacy of the Standard Contractual Clauses in principle in Schrems II , it made clear that reliance on the Standard Contractual Clauses alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. Use of the Standard Contractual Clauses must now be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the legal regime applicable in the destination country, in particular regarding applicable surveillance laws and relevant rights of individuals with respect to the transferred data. In the context of any given transfer, where the legal regime applicable in the destination country may or does conflict with the intended operation of the Standard Contractual Clauses and/or applicable European law, the decision in Schrems II and subsequent draft guidance from the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) would require the parties to that transfer to implement certain supplementary technical, organizational and/or contractual measures to rely on the Standard Contractual Clauses as a lawful “transfer mechanism.” However, the draft guidance from the EDPB on such supplementary technical, organizational and/or contractual measures appears to conclude that any combination of such measures may not be sufficient to allow effective reliance on the Standard Contractual Clauses in the context of transfers of personal data “in the clear” to recipients in countries where the power granted to public authorities to access the transferred data goes beyond that which is “necessary and proportionate in a democratic society” - which may, following the CJEU’s conclusions in Schrems II on relevant powers of United States public authorities and commentary in draft EDPB guidance, include the United States in certain circumstances ( e.g ., where Section 702 of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applies). Further, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has provided for separate international data transfer mechanisms for restricted transfers of data from the UK: an international data transfer agreement (the UK equivalent of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses) (“IDTA”) and an international data transfer addendum (which amends the EU Standard Contractual Clauses for purposes of international data transfers from the UK to countries without an essentially equivalent data protection framework) (the “Addendum”). Both the IDTA and the Addendum came into force in March 2022. If we are unable to implement a valid solution to transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States or other countries that have not been deemed to provide an essentially equivalent level of data protection, we may face increased exposure to regulatory action, substantial fines, or injunction orders to stop processing personal data from EEA, Swiss, or UK residents. Any inability to import personal data to the United States may also restrict our clinical trials activities in the EU; limit our ability to collaborate with contract research organizations as well as other service providers, contractors and other companies subject to EU data privacy and security laws; and require us to increase our data processing capabilities in the EU and the UK at a significant expense. Additionally, other countries outside of the EU have enacted or are considering enacting similar cross-border data transfer restrictions and laws requiring local data 51 residency, which could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services and operating our business. The types of challenges we face in the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK will likely also arise in other jurisdictions that adopt laws similar to the GDPR or regulatory frameworks of equivalent complexity. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions or criminal prosecution. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately 115 full-time employees, including five employees who have M.D.s or Ph.D.s. Within our workforce, 11 employees were primarily engaged in research and development, 85 were primarily engaged in sales and marketing and 19 were primarily engaged in general management and administration. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe that we maintain good relationships with our employees. We focus on identifying, attracting, incentivizing, developing and retaining an exceptional team of highly talented and motivated employees to support our current product pipeline and future business goals. In order to drive innovation, we continuously improve our human capital management strategies and find ways to foster engagement and growth within our company. We regularly benchmark total rewards we provide against our industry peers to ensure we offer competitive compensation and benefits packages to our employees and potential new hires. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward selected personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, as well as provide our employees with the opportunity to participate in our employee stock purchase plan, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives. We strive to build a diverse environment where our employees can thrive and one that inspires exceptional contributions and professional and personal development in order to achieve our vision to become the leading pain management company that can have a transformative impact on patients’ lives. The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being, health and safety of our employees. We plan to continue to develop our efforts related to attracting, retaining and motivating our workforce as we grow and develop. Legal Proceedings From time to time we may become involved in various legal proceedings, including those that may arise in the ordinary course of business. Former Employee Action On March 12, 2021, Scilex Pharma and Sorrento (the “Plaintiffs”) filed an action (the “Former Employee Action”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the former President of Scilex Pharma, Anthony Mack, and Virpax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Virpax”, and together with Mr. Mack, the “Defendants”), a company founded and then headed by Mr. Mack, alleging, among other things, breach by Mr. Mack of a restrictive covenant agreement with Sorrento related to his sale of his Scilex Pharma stock to Sorrento, tortious interference with that agreement by Virpax, breach of Mr. Mack’s fiduciary duties to Scilex Pharma, aiding and abetting of that breach by Virpax, and misappropriation of Scilex Pharma’s trade secrets by Mr. Mack and Virpax. Such lawsuit sought, among other relief, damages and various forms of injunctive relief. The case was tried from September 12, 2022 to September 14, 2022. On September 1, 2023, the court found in favor of the Plaintiffs on all but three counts deemed to have been waived. In its 95-page opinion, the court instructed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the appropriate remedy to implement its rulings. On October 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental brief on remedies. On November 29, 2023, Defendants submitted a supplemental brief on remedies. On December 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental reply brief on remedies. On February 26, 2024, we and Virpax entered into a term sheet regarding a mutual release and settlement agreement, pursuant to which the parties have agreed to resolve the ongoing disputes. On February 29, 2024, we and Virpax entered into a definitive settlement agreement, which provides for, among other things, that Virpax would be obligated to make the following payments to us to settle the Former Employee Action: (i) $3.5 million (the “Initial Payment”) by two business days after the Effective Date (as defined therein), which payment has been made; (ii) $2.5 million by July 1, 2024, which payment has been made on July 8, 2024 and (iii) to the extent any of the following drug candidates are ever sold, royalty payments of (a) 6% of annual Net Sales (as defined therein) of Epoladerm; (b) 6% of annual Net Sales of Probudur and (c) 6% of annual Net Sales of Envelta during the Royalty Term (as defined therein). We and Virpax provided mutual releases of all claims that existed as of the Effective Date, whether known or unknown, arising from any allegations set forth in the Former Employee Action. Plaintiffs’ release relates to claims against Virpax only, which does not affect our claims against Mr. Mack. Plaintiffs have not released Mr. Mack, and litigation against him remains ongoing. The court has requested additional oral argument on the topic of remedies against Mr. Mack, which argument occurred on November 15, 2024. The parties are awaiting a final judgment from the court. 52 ZTlido Patent Litigation On June 22, 2022, we filed a complaint against Aveva Drug Delivery Systems, Inc. (“Aveva”), Apotex Corp., and Apotex, Inc. (together, “Apotex”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “ZTlido Patent Litigation”) alleging infringement of certain Orange Book listed patents covering ZTlido (the “ZTlido Patents”). The ZTlido Patent Litigation was initiated following the submission by Apotex, in accordance with the procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act, of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”). Apotex’s ANDA seeks approval to market a generic version of ZTlido prior to the expiration of the ZTlido Patents and alleges that the ZTlido Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed. We are seeking, among other relief, an order that the effective date of any FDA approval of Apotex’s ANDA be no earlier than the expiration of the asserted patents listed in the Orange Book, the latest of which expires on May 10, 2031, and such further and other relief as the court may deem appropriate. Apotex and Aveva were subject to an automatic 30-month stay preventing them from selling a generic version of ZTlido during that time which was extinguished by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida decision described below. However, to our knowledge, Aveva has not received FDA approval for any generic version of ZTlido. The two Apotex entities were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice, as they no longer had an interest in the generic product that Aveva seeks to market. Before trial, Aveva dropped its challenge to the validity and enforceability of the Company’s patents. Trial in the ZTlido Patent Litigation was held from July 8, 2024 to July 11, 2024. Final post-trial briefing was submitted by the parties on July 25, 2024, and the case was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On August 26, 2024, that court issued a decision finding that Aveva’s product does not infringe our ZTlido Patents. We are appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 25, 2024. Our Corporate History Legacy Scilex was incorporated in Delaware in February 2019 for the purpose of effecting a corporate reorganization. On March 18, 2019, Legacy Scilex entered into a Contribution and Loan Agreement with Sorrento and the holders of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Scilex Pharma pursuant to which Legacy Scilex acquired 100% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Scilex Pharma in exchange for shares of Legacy Scilex Common Stock (such transaction, the “Contribution”). Pursuant to the Contribution and Loan Agreement, Sorrento provided Legacy Scilex with a loan with an initial principal amount of $16.5 million in the form of a note payable, which loan was used to fund the acquisition of Semnur. Concurrently therewith, Legacy Scilex entered into the Semnur Merger Agreement with Semnur, Sigma Merger Sub, Inc., Legacy Scilex’s prior wholly owned subsidiary, Fortis Advisors LLC, solely as representative of the holders of Semnur equity, and Sorrento, for limited purposes. Pursuant to the Semnur Merger Agreement, Sigma Merger Sub, Inc. merged with and into Semnur, with Semnur surviving the Semnur Merger as Legacy Scilex’s wholly owned subsidiary. As a result of the Contribution and the Semnur Merger, Scilex Pharma and Semnur became Legacy Scilex’s wholly owned subsidiaries. Prior to the Contribution and the Semnur Merger, operations of Legacy Scilex were conducted through Scilex Pharma, which was formed in September 2012. Semnur was formed in June 2013. On November 10, 2022, we consummated the Business Combination with Vickers and Legacy Scilex. In connection with the Business Combination, Vickers changed its name from Vickers Vantage Corp. I to Scilex Holding Company. We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”). As an emerging growth company, we are eligible for exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation. Website Access to SEC Filings We file annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains an Internet website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, including Scilex. We maintain an Internet website at www.scilexholding.com. The information contained on our website or that can be accessed through our website does not constitute a part of this report. We make available, free of charge through our Internet website, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish this information to the SEC. 53 Item 1A. Ri sk Factors. Investing in our Common Stock involves a high degree of risk. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks described below before deciding whether to invest in our Common Stock. Before you make a decision to buy our securities, in addition to the risks and uncertainties discussed above under “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”, you should carefully consider the specific risks set forth herein. If any of these risks actually occur, it may materially harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. As a result, the market price of our securities could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additionally, the risks and uncertainties described below are not the only risks and uncertainties that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may become material and adversely affect our business. Risk Factor Summary Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our Common Stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) before making an investment decision regarding our Common Stock. Risks Related to our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements • We currently have three commercial products, ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA; but we are currently heavily dependent on the commercial success of ZTlido, as ELYXYB and GLOPERBA are in the initial stages of commercialization, and we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to support our operations. • We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future. • The terms of the Oramed Note and the Tranche B Notes (each as defined below) place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. • We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. • We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service our indebtedness and other liquidity needs. • Our recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows and substantial cumulative net losses raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Risks Related to our Commercial Operations and Product Development • We obtain, or historically have obtained, our commercial supply of certain of our products, the clinical supply of our product candidates and certain of the raw materials used in our product candidates from sole or single source suppliers and manufacturers. In the event of a loss of one of these suppliers or manufacturers, or a failure by any such supplier or manufacturer to comply with FDA regulations, we may not be able to find an alternative source on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. • We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and intend to rely on third parties to conduct all of our future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. • Interim “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. • ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB may have undesirable properties that could result in significant negative consequences, and our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval. Risks Related to our Business and Operations • If we are unable to retain our key executives, it may delay our development efforts and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. • Any disruption in our research and development facilities could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 54 Risks Related to our Intellectual Property • We are substantially dependent on the intellectual property we in-license from Oishi and Itochu, and if we lose the right to license such intellectual property or if the Product Development Agreement is terminated for any reason, our ability to commercialize ZTlido and develop and commercialize SP-103 would be harmed. • We are party to the Romeg License Agreement for the in-licensing of certain intellectual property rights from Romeg with respect to the commercialization of GLOPERBA, and if we lose the right to license such intellectual property or if the Romeg License Agreement is terminated for any reason, our ability to commercialize GLOPERBA would be harmed. • If we are unable to maintain patent protection for ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets. Risks Related to Government Regulations • The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be substantially harmed. Moreover, gaining approval for a product candidate in one country or jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain approval for or commercialize it in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize our full market potential. • Any approved product candidate will be subject to ongoing and continued regulatory requirements, which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. Risks Related to our Relationship with Sorrento • Sorrento previously supported many of our important corporate functions. Accordingly, our historical consolidated financial statements may not necessarily be indicative of the conditions that would have existed or our results of operations if we had been operated as an unaffiliated company of Sorrento, and we have and will continue to incur incremental costs as a stand-alone public company. Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock • If our operations and performance do not meet the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the market price of our securities may decline. • We are an emerging growth company, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our Common Stock less attractive to investors. Risks Related to our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements We currently have three commercial products, ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA; but we are currently heavily dependent on the commercial success of ZTlido, as ELYXYB and GLOPERBA are in the initial stages of commercialization, and we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to support our operations. We currently have three commercial products, ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA; but we are currently heavily dependent upon ZTlido sales to generate revenue, as ELYXYB and GLOPERBA are in the initial stages of commercialization. In February 2018, we obtained FDA regulatory approval for ZTlido for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia (“PHN”) in adults, which is a form of post-shingles nerve pain, and we began commercializing ZTlido in the United States in October 2018. In late February 2023, we acquired ELYXYB, a potential first-line treatment and the only FDA-approved, ready-to-use oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine, with or without aura, in adults, in the U.S. We launched ELYXYB in April of 2023. In June 2022, we acquired certain rights to GLOPERBA, the first and only liquid oral version of the anti-gout medicine colchicine indicated for the prophylaxis of painful gout flares in adults. We launched GLOPERBA in June 2024. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future prospects. We cannot assure that ZTlido, ELYXYB or GLOPERBA will gain market acceptance among physicians, health care payors, patients and the medical community, which is critical to our commercial success. We have limited experience engaging in commercial activities and limited relationships with physicians, hospitals and payors. Market acceptance of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA depends on a number of factors, including: • acceptance by physicians, major operators of clinics and patients of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA as a safe and effective treatment for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN (ZTlido), acute migraine pain (ELYXYB), and prevention of gout flares (GLOPERBA); 55 • the availability, cost and potential advantages of alternative treatments, including less expensive generic products; • the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts; • the availability of coverage, adequacy of reimbursement and favorability of pricing policies by third-party payors and government authorities; • the timing of market introduction of other competitive products; • the product labeling or any product inserts required by the FDA; and • the prevalence and severity of adverse side effects. To successfully commercialize ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA, we will need to expand our marketing efforts to develop new relationships and expand existing relationships. Physicians may decide not to prescribe ZTlido, ELYXYB or GLOPERBA for a variety of reasons, including changes in available offerings, adverse publicity, perceived safety issues, inadequate coverage or reimbursement for ZTlido, ELYXYB or GLOPERBA or the utilization of products developed by other parties, all of which are circumstances outside of our control. Demand for ZTlido may not increase, or may not develop for ELYXYB or GLOPERBA, as quickly as we predict, and we may be unable to increase our revenue to the level that we currently expect. Even if we succeed in increasing market acceptance of ZTlido or developing market acceptance of ELYXYB and GLOPERBA, and maintaining and creating relationships with physicians, we may be unable to reach or sustain a level of profitability. Our ability to effectively promote ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA will also depend on pricing and cost-effectiveness, including our ability to produce and market our products at a competitive price. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA may require significant resources, may be constrained by FDA rules and policies on product promotion and may never be successful. We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future. We have a limited operating history. Prior to March 2019, our operations were conducted through Scilex Pharma, which was formed in September 2012 and is now our wholly owned subsidiary. In March 2019, we effected a corporate reorganization and acquired Semnur, which was formed in June 2013. Since our inception, we have focused on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, identifying potential non-opioid pain therapy candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates and establishing research and development and manufacturing collaborations. Most of our revenue to date is attributable to sales of ZTlido, and we expect that sales of ZTlido will account for most of our revenue for at least the near term. Our relatively short operating history as a company makes any assessment of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome such risks and difficulties successfully. Our ability to execute on our business model and generate revenues depends on a number of factors including our ability to: • successfully complete ongoing clinical trials and obtain regulatory approvals for our current and future product candidates; • identify new acquisition or in-licensing opportunities; • successfully identify new product candidates and advance those product candidates into pre-clinical studies and clinical trials; • raise additional funds when needed and on terms acceptable to us; • attract and retain experienced management and advisory teams; • add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support clinical, manufacturing and planned future commercialization efforts and operations; • launch commercial sales of our product candidates, whether alone or in collaboration with others; • initiate and continue relationships with third-party suppliers and manufacturers and have commercial quantities of product candidates manufactured at acceptable cost and quality levels and in compliance with the FDA, and other regulatory requirements; • set acceptable prices for product candidates and obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors; • achieve market acceptance of product candidates in the medical community and with third-party payors and consumers; and • maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio. If we cannot successfully execute any one of the foregoing, our business may not succeed or become profitable. 56 Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses, with net losses of $72.8 million and $114.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $563.1 million and $490.2 million , respectively. For the foreseeable future, we expect to continue to incur significant expenses related to the commercialization of ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB and the research and development of our product candidates, SP-102 (10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate viscous gel) (“SEMDEXA”), SP-103 (lidocaine topical system) 5.4% (“SP-103”), and SP-104 (4.5 mg, low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules) (“SP-104”). We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially due to any future trials related to SEMDEXA and SP-103 and initiation of the Phase 2 clinical trial for SP-104. Consequently, we expect to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable. We are subject to risks incidental to the development of new biopharmaceutical products, and we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. 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 could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. If we are unable to raise capital through a registered offering, we would be required to conduct our equity financing transactions on a private placement basis, which may be subject to pricing, size and other limitations imposed under the Nasdaq Listing Rules, or seek other sources of capital. The terms of the Oramed Note and the Tranche B Notes place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. On September 21, 2023, we issued and sold to Oramed a senior secured promissory note due 18 months from the date of issuance, in the principal amount of $101,875,000 (the “Oramed Note”) pursuant to that certain securities purchase agreement we entered into with Oramed, dated as of September 21, 2023 (the “Scilex-Oramed SPA”). Interest under the Oramed Note accrues at a fluctuating per annum interest rate equal to the sum of (1) greater of (x) four percent (4%) and (y) Term SOFR (as defined in the Oramed Note) and (2) eight and one-half percent (8.5%), payable in-kind on a monthly basis. Pursuant to the Oramed Note, since the outstanding principal of the Oramed Note was not repaid in full on or prior to March 21, 2024, an exit fee of $3,056,250 has been earned with respect to the Oramed Note, which shall be due and payable on the date the outstanding principal amount of the Oramed Note is paid in full. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an event of default under the Oramed Note, holders of more than 50% of the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the Oramed Notes may elect to cause all outstanding amounts under the Oramed Note to accrue interest at a default rate equal to the lesser of (i) Term SOFR plus fifteen percent (15%) or (ii) the maximum rate permitted under applicable law. Any voluntary prepayments of the Oramed Note occurring prior to the one-year anniversary of the Oramed Closing Date are required to be paid together with a make-whole amount equal to 50% of the amount of additional interest that would accrue on the principal amount so prepaid under the Oramed Note from the date of such prepayment through and including the maturity date. The make-whole amount was waived by Oramed for our voluntary prepayments in March 2024. If the Oramed Note is accelerated upon an event of default, we are required to repay the principal amount of the Oramed Note at a mandatory default rate of 125% of such principal amount (together with 100% of accrued and unpaid interest thereon and all other amounts due in respect of the Oramed Note). The Oramed Note contains mandatory prepayment provisions requiring us and our subsidiaries to, following the earlier of (x) April 1, 2024, and (y) the date on which the Acceptable Indebtedness (as defined in the Oramed Note) is repaid in full, use 70% of the net cash proceeds of any Cash Sweep Financing (as defined in the Oramed Note) or advance under the ELOCs (as defined in the Oramed Note) to prepay the outstanding principal amount of the Oramed Note (the “Mandatory Prepayment Sweep”). Following each of the April 2024 RDO, the receipt of the FSF Deposit and ATM Sales Agreement (each as defined below), we made a mandatory prepayment of $9,578,835, $7,000,000 and $1,760,796, respectively, to Oramed, which equals 70% of the net cash proceeds we received from each of the April 2024 RDO, the FSF Deposit and the sale of shares pursuant to the ATM Sales Agreement. Given such payment was not a voluntary prepayment, such prepayment did not trigger the make-whole amount under the Oramed Note. On October 8, 2024 (the “Issuance Date”), we issued and sold in a registered offering to certain institutional investors (collectively, the “Tranche B Investors”) and Oramed (together with the Investors, the “Tranche B Noteholders”) senior secured convertible notes in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Tranche B Notes”), which notes will be convertible into shares of Common Stock, pursuant to that certain securities purchase agreement we entered into with the Tranche B Noteholders, dated as of October 7, 2024 (the “Tranche B Securities Purchase Agreement”). In consideration for Tranche B Notes issued to Oramed, the outstanding principal balance of the Oramed Note was reduced by $22,500,000, and an additional principal payment of an aggregate amount of $15,000,000 was made in November and December 2024. As of December 31, 2024, the outstanding principal amount, as well as the accrued interest and fees, of the Oramed Note was $24,955,634, with the remaining amount due on March 21, 2025, which maturity date was extended to December 31, 2025 pursuant to an amendment letter we entered into with Oramed, dated as of January 21, 2025. 57 Unless earlier converted or redeemed, the Tranche B Notes mature on the two-year anniversary of the Issuance Date (the “Maturity Date”), subject to extension at the option of the holder in certain circumstances as provided therein. The Tranche B Notes bear interest at a rate of 5.5% per annum, payable in arrears on the first trading day of each calendar quarter, beginning January 2, 2025, payable, at our option, either in cash or in shares of Common Stock, subject to certain conditions. The Oramed Note and the Tranche B Notes contain affirmative and negative covenants binding on us and our subsidiaries which restrict, among other things, us and our subsidiaries from incurring indebtedness or liens, repaying certain indebtedness, or declaring or paying any cash dividends or distribution, selling or otherwise disposing of any assets, entering into transactions with affiliates, in each case as more fully set forth in, and subject to certain qualifications, exceptions, and “baskets” set forth in the Oramed Note and the Tranche B Notes. The Oramed Note also contains covenants requiring us to maintain a segregated bank account under specific terms and conditions, for purposes of receiving the Mandatory Prepayment Sweep, requiring SCLX Stock Acquisition JV LLC, our indirect wholly owned subsidiary (“SCLX JV”), to comply with the separateness representations and covenants in its organizational documents, and requiring our subsidiary, SCLX DRE Holdings LLC, to maintain its status as a passive holding company. The Tranche B Notes also require us to, at the request of the holder, not more frequently than once per fiscal year, hire an independent, reputable investment bank to investigate whether any breach of the Tranche B Notes has occurred if an event constituting an event of default has occurred and is continuing or any holder reasonably believes that an event constituting an event of default has occurred or is continuing. The Oramed Note and the Tranche B Notes contain certain customary events of default, including, without limitation, a cross-default to other specified indebtedness or any other indebtedness involving an obligation of certain amount, a failure in payment of principal, as well as any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization event. The Oramed Note also contains additional events of default with respect to certain events relating to our obligations under that certain registration rights agreement, dated as of September 21, 2023, between us and Oramed and relating to (i) the warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 13,000,000 shares of Common Stock, with an exercise price of $0.01 per share (the “Penny Warrants”), that we issued to Oramed pursuant to the Scilex-Oramed SPA, (ii) the warrants to purchase up to 4,000,000 shares of Common Stock, with an exercise price of $11.50 per share (the “Transferred Warrants”), that we transferred to Oramed pursuant to the Scilex-Oramed SPA and/or (iii) the shares of Common Stock underlying the Penny Warrants or Transferred Warrants, in each case as more fully set forth in the Oramed Note. In addition, failure to comply with the covenants under the Oramed Note could result in an event of default. The events of default include, among others, a change of control of our company. Upon an event of default, subject to notice requirements in the case of certain events of default, all amounts outstanding under the Oramed Note may become immediately due and payable. We may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to repay such indebtedness or to make any accelerated payments, and Oramed could seek to enforce its security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness or other remedies available to it under the Oramed Note or as provided by applicable law. Oramed could also seek to enforce the guaranty under the Subsidiary Guarantee entered into by us and each of our subsidiaries, dated as of September 21, 2023, to carry out our payment obligations under the Oramed Note. Any failure by us to comply with the obligations under the Oramed Note could have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the Tranche B Notes prohibit us from entering into specified fundamental transactions unless the successor entity assumes all of our obligations under the Tranche B Notes under a written agreement approved by the required holders of the Tranche B Notes before the transaction is completed. Upon consummation of specified fundamental transactions, the successor entity must confirm that upon conversion or redemption of the Tranche B Notes thereafter, shares of the successor entity will be issuable upon such conversion or redemption. The holders of the Tranche B Notes also have certain redemption rights upon a fundamental transaction constituting a change of control. Our outstanding indebtedness and any future indebtedness we may incur, combined with our other financial obligations, could increase our vulnerability to adverse changes in general economic, industry and market conditions, limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry and impose a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt or better debt servicing options. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, the terms of any new debt could further restrict our ability to operate our business. The Oramed Note and Tranche B Notes impose certain operating and financial covenants and any failure to comply with such covenants could result in an event of default that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If an event of default occurs under the Oramed Note or the Tranche B Notes (collectively, the “Existing Notes”), the holder of the Oramed Note could elect to immediately accelerate the due date of such note and, in the case of the Tranche B Notes, all of the holders thereof could require that we redeem such notes in accordance with the terms thereof, including any default interest rates, liquidated damages or similar penalties that would arise pursuant to the terms of such Existing Notes upon an event of default that is not cured within the applicable periods set forth in the Existing Notes. 58 We may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to repay our indebtedness under the Existing Notes or to make any accelerated or redemption payments, and the lenders could seek to enforce their respective security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness or other remedies available to such lenders under the Existing Notes or as provided by applicable law. The lenders could also seek to enforce the guaranty under the Subsidiary Guarantee entered into by us and each of our subsidiaries, dated as of September 21, 2023 and amended as of October 8, 2024, to carry out our payment obligations under the Existing Notes. Any failure by us to comply with the obligations under the Existing Notes could cause our stock price to decrease significantly, result in substantial dilution or cause us to be unable to raise additional capital, which could have a material negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See the risk factor titled “ We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle the Oramed Note or the Tranche B Notes in cash upon a change of control or other event of default, and any future debt may contain limitations on our ability to pay cash upon conversion of the Tranche B Notes ” for additional information. We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle the Oramed Note or the Tranche B Notes in cash upon a change of control or other event of default, and any future debt may contain limitations on our ability to pay cash upon conversion of the Tranche B Notes. A change of control transaction triggers an event of default under the Oramed Note, which will result in the full unpaid principal amount of the Oramed Note, together with interest and other amounts owing in respect thereof, to the date of acceleration becoming, at the election of the holder of the Oramed Note, immediately due and payable in cash at the Mandatory Default Amount (as defined in the Oramed Note). Similarly, a change of control transaction (including any fundamental transaction in which our successor is not a public company) triggers the redemption rights of the holders under the Tranche B Notes. If the Tranche B Notes are not retired in connection with such change of control transaction, each holder may require us to redeem in cash all, or any portion, of the Tranche B Notes at a 30% redemption premium to the greater of (i) the amounts then outstanding under the Tranche B Notes to be redeemed; (ii) the equity value of our Common Stock underlying such Tranche B Notes; and (iii) the equity value of the change of control consideration payable to the holders of our Common Stock underlying such Tranche B Notes. In such events or in the event of any other redemption event or event of default under the Oramed Note or the Tranche B Notes , we may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to pay cash with respect to the Oramed Note or the Tranche B Notes. In addition, our ability to pay cash upon default of the Oramed Note or the Tranche B Notes may be limited by law, regulatory authority, or any agreements governing our future indebtedness . We may be required to make milestone payments to the former stockholders of Semnur in connection with our development and commercialization of SEMDEXA, which could adversely affect the overall profitability of SEMDEXA, if approved. Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger we entered into with Semnur, Sigma Merger Sub, Inc., our prior wholly owned subsidiary, Fortis Advisors LLC, solely as representative of the holders of Semnur equity (the “Semnur Equityholders”), and Sorrento, for limited purposes, we are obligated to pay the Semnur Equityholders up to an aggregate of $280.0 million in contingent cash consideration based on the achievement of certain milestones. A $40.0 million payment will be due upon obtaining the first approval of a new drug application by the FDA (“NDA”) of any Semnur product, which includes SEMDEXA. Additional payments will be due upon the achievement of certain cumulative net sales of Semnur products, as follows: • a $20.0 million payment upon the achievement of $100.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product; • a $20.0 million payment upon the achievement of $250.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product; • a $50.0 million payment upon the achievement of $500.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product; and • a $150.0 million payment upon the achievement of $750.0 million in cumulative net sales of a Semnur product. These milestone obligations could impose substantial additional costs on us, divert resources from other aspects of our business, and adversely affect the overall profitability of SEMDEXA, if approved. We may need to obtain additional financing to satisfy these milestone payments, and cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to significantly increase our spending to continue our commercialization efforts for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB, advance development of our current product candidates and launch and commercialize any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We will also require additional capital to fund our other operating expenses and capital expenditures. 59 As of December 31, 2024, our cash and cash equivalents were approximately $3.3 million and we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $563.1 million. The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, some of which are outside of our control, including but not limited to: • the costs and expenses associated with our ongoing commercialization efforts for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB; • the degree of success we experience in commercializing ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB; • the revenue generated by sales of ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and other products that may be approved, if any; • the scope, progress, results and costs of conducting studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, SEMDEXA, SP-103 and SP-104; • the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates; • the costs of manufacturing ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates; • the timing and amount of any milestone, royalty or other payments we are required to make pursuant to any current or future collaboration or license agreements; • our ability to maintain existing, and establish new, strategic collaborations, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of any such agreements, including the timing and amount of any future milestone, royalty or other payments due under any such agreement; • the extent to which ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB or any of our product candidates, if approved for commercialization, is adopted by the physician community; • our need to expand our research and development activities; • the costs of acquiring, licensing or investing in businesses, product candidates and technologies; • the effect of competing products and product candidates and other market developments; • the number and types of future products we develop and commercialize; • any product liability or other lawsuits related to our products; • the expenses needed to attract, hire and retain skilled personnel; • the costs associated with being a public company; • our need to implement additional internal systems and infrastructure, including financial and reporting systems; • the costs of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications and maintaining, enforcing and defending intellectual property-related claims; • the costs related to servicing of our debt; • the costs of financing additional clinical, regulatory and commercial activities; and • the extent and scope of our general and administrative expenses. Until we are able to generate significant revenue, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, government contracts or other strategic transactions. We cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. Furthermore, any additional equity or equity-related financing may be dilutive to our stockholders, and debt or equity financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants and significant interest costs. If we raise additional funds through collaborations or strategic alliances with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or technologies, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unsuccessful in our efforts to raise additional financing on acceptable terms, we may be required to significantly reduce or cease our operations. We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service our indebtedness and other liquidity needs. Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness and to fund our other obligations, planned capital expenditures and other strategic investments will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations, and we cannot assure you that future borrowings will be available to us in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs. If we do not generate cash flow from operations sufficient to pay our debt service or other 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. Our ability to refinance our debt and fund other obligations will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at that time. 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. See Note 2 titled “Liquidity and Going Concern” of our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for a discussion regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. 60 Our recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows and substantial cumulative net losses raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In Note 2 titled “ Liquidity and Going Concern ” of our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we disclose that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, which stated that management has concluded that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern for one year after the date our consolidated financial statements are issued. We have negative working capital and have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations and expect to continue incurring losses for the foreseeable future. Further, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $563.1 million as of December 31, 2024 and approximately $490.2 million as of December 31, 2023. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Our ability to become a profitable operating company is dependent upon our ability to generate revenue and obtain financing adequate to fulfill our development and commercialization activities, and achieving a level of revenue adequate to support our cost structure. We have plans to obtain additional resources to fund our currently planned operations and expenditures through additional debt and equity financing. We will need to seek additional financing to fund our current operations, including the commercialization of ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB, as well as the development of our other material product candidates for the next 12 months. Our plans are substantially dependent upon the success of future sales of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA among which ELYXYB and GLOPERBA are still in the early stages of commercialization, and are dependent upon, among other things, the success of our marketing of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA and our ability to secure additional payor contracts with terms that are consistent with our business plan. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, our financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. Future financial statements may disclose substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. We have previously identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to timely and accurately report our financial results and such material weaknesses may result in a material misstatement of our consolidated financial statements. In connection with the audit of our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we identified control deficiencies in the design and operation of our internal control over financial reporting that constituted material weaknesses. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. As more fully disclosed in Item 9A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, the material weakness identified in our internal control over financial reporting related to ineffective control activities in the areas of revenue, business combination, debt and derivative liabilities caused by a lack of sufficient accounting resources with appropriate experience and technical expertise to effectively execute controls over certain judgmental and technical accounting areas. As a result of the material weakness, we hired additional accounting personnel and are implementing remediation measures including, but not limited to, performing a comprehensive assessment of accounting and finance resource requirements and hiring other personnel with sufficient accounting expertise at our company to improve the operating effectiveness of our review controls and monitoring activities, and utilizing external accounting experts as appropriate. Any potential material misstatements were identified and corrected as audit adjustments in the applicable periods and are properly reflected in our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We hired a new Chief Financial Officer in May 2022 at Legacy Scilex and she served as Chief Financial Officer of the Company through September 2023. In May 2023, we appointed a Chief Accounting Officer, who became our Chief Financial Officer in September 2023. In addition, we expect to hire additional personnel with accounting expertise and utilize external accounting experts. As of December 31, 2023, we have remediated the previously identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, and we have not identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting for the year ended December 31, 2024. If we identify additional material weaknesses or deficiencies in internal controls in the future and we are unable to correct them in a timely manner, our ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information accurately and within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, will be adversely affected. Any such failure could negatively affect the market price and trading liquidity of our Common Stock, lead to delisting, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, 61 subject us to civil and criminal investigations and penalties, and generally materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition. If, in the future, we identify material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting or fail to meet the demands that will be placed upon us as a public company, including the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we may be unable to accurately report our financial results or report them within the timeframes required by law or stock exchange regulations. Failure to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could also potentially subject us to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. If additional material weaknesses exist or are discovered in the future, and we are unable to remediate any such material weakness, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer. Risks Related to our Commercial Operations and Product Development We obtain, or historically have obtained, our commercial supply of certain of our products, the clinical supply of our product candidates and certain of the raw materials used in our product candidates from sole or single source suppliers and manufacturers. In the event of a loss of one of these suppliers or manufacturers, or a failure by any such supplier or manufacturer to comply with FDA regulations, we may not be able to find an alternative source on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. We rely on a number of sole or single source suppliers and manufacturers, including: • the manufacturer and supplier for the commercial supply of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA; • the manufacturer and supplier for the clinical supply of SP-103; • the manufacturer and supplier for the clinical supply of SP-104; • the supplier of sodium hyaluronate, one of the excipients for SEMDEXA; and • the manufacturer for the clinical supply of SEMDEXA. Under the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement, we license the rights to ZTlido from, and rely exclusively on, Oishi and Itochu for the manufacturing and supply of ZTlido and SP-103. Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement under certain circumstances, including, among other things: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement and the breach is not curable or if the breach is curable and we fail to cure such material breach within 180 days after notice requesting to cure; (2) if, at any time during the term of the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement, the market conditions are such that (a) our total net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of ZTlido and SP-103 for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, or (b) the economic viability of ZTlido and SP-103 is affected significantly as evidenced by documentation and substantial information by any external circumstances deemed detrimental to all parties as agreed to by us, on the one hand, and Oishi and Itochu, on the other hand, and the parties are unable to resolve the concerns under the foregoing clauses (a) and (b) after 30 days of good-faith discussion; and (3) in the event of our bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. As of December 31, 2024, our net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 have not exceeded five percent of net sales. Accordingly, Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement. As of December 31, 2024, neither Oishi nor Itochu has exercised its right of termination. If the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement are terminated, we would lose access to the intellectual property and proprietary manufacturing process upon which ZTlido and SP-103 depend. We expect our third-party manufacturers and suppliers of both GLOPERBA and ELYXYB are capable of providing sufficient quantities of these products to meet anticipated commercial demands; however, if third parties with whom we currently work are unable to meet our manufacturing and supply requirements, we will need to secure alternate manufacturers and suppliers or face potential delays or shortages. While we believe that there are other contract manufacturers and suppliers with the technical capabilities to manufacture and supply these products, we cannot be certain that identifying and establishing relationships with such sources would not result in significant delay or material additional costs. Historically, we have purchased our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate, one of the excipients for SP-102, solely from Genzyme Corporation (“Genzyme”) pursuant to a supply agreement, which terminated as of May 31, 2024. We anticipate that our current supply of sodium hyaluronate will be sufficient to satisfy our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate for at least 12 months following our expected commercial launch of SP-102 in 2027. Although we are currently in discussions with Sanofi S.A. (“Sanofi”), an affiliate of Genzyme, and are in the process of identifying and certifying new suppliers, in each case to fulfill our future supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate, we may not be able to reach agreement with Sanofi or find an alternative supplier of sodium hyaluronate on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Under the Lifecore Master Services Agreement, we depend on Lifecore to manufacture clinical supplies of SEMDEXA. Lifecore has the right to terminate the Lifecore Master Services Agreement under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of written notice; (2) if we (a) become insolvent, (b) 62 cease to function as a going concern, (c) become convicted of or plead guilty to a charge of violating any law relating to either party’s business, or (d) engage in any act which materially impairs goodwill associated with SEMDEXA or materially impairs the terminating party’s trademark or trade name; (3) if we fail to pay past due invoices upon 30 days’ written notice, or (4) if we reject or fail to respond to a major change proposed by Lifecore that does not change Semnur’s written and approved acceptance criteria in its product specifications. In the event that Lifecore decides to terminate the Lifecore Master Services Agreement, finding an alternative manufacturer on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, may be difficult. On June 6, 2023, Semnur entered into the Second Amendment to Lifecore Master Services Agreement with Lifecore, which extended the term of the agreement until December 31, 2028. Under the Tulex Master Services Agreement and the statement of work with Tulex, we depend on Tulex to develop, test and manufacture clinical supplies of SP-104. Tulex has the right to terminate the Tulex Master Services Agreement under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement or a statement of work and fail to cure such breach within 15 days after receipt of notice of such breach (or such other time period expressly stated in the applicable statement of work) or (2) in the event of our insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership, or a failure to remove any insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership proceedings within ten days from the date of institution of such proceedings. In addition, we may terminate the agreement or any statement of work (a) without cause upon 30 days prior written notice to Tulex or (b) immediately upon written notice in the event Tulex is dissolved or undergoes a change in control. In the event that the Tulex Master Services Agreement or a statement of work is terminated, we may not be able to find an alternative manufacturer and supplier on commercially reasonable terms. Additionally, the manufacturing facilities used by our third-party suppliers and manufacturers must continue to comply with FDA regulations and are subject to periodic announced or unannounced inspections. We have limited control over the ability of our third-party suppliers and manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If our third-party suppliers and manufacturers fail to comply with FDA regulations, the FDA may not authorize the manufacture of our products and product candidates at these facilities, and we may be unable to find alternative manufacturing facilities in a timely manner or at all. The failure by such third parties to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, import detention, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls of our product, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions. In addition, our product candidates may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities and other supplies. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Also, prior to the approval of our product candidates, we would need to identify a contract manufacturer that could produce our products at a commercial scale and that could successfully complete FDA pre-approval inspection and inspections by other health authorities. Agreements with such manufacturers or suppliers may not be available to us at the time we would need to have that capability and capacity. If the commercial supply of our commercial products, clinical supply of our product candidates and certain of the raw materials used in our product candidates are disrupted or delayed, there can be no assurance that alternative sources can serve as adequate replacements or that supplies will be available on terms that are favorable to us, if at all. Any disruption in supply could affect the profitability of ZTlido, the commercialization of GLOPERBA and ELYXYB, and the development of SEMDEXA, SP-103 and SP-104. We rely on a single third-party logistics distribution provider for ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA. We currently rely on Cardinal Health 105, LLC (“Cardinal Health 105”) as our third-party logistics distribution provider for ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA in the United States. Cardinal Health 105 also performs the following services on our behalf: customer service, credit checks, invoicing, chargebacks, distributor fee for service, government reporting, customer returns, accounts receivable, inventory control, product security (DSCSA serialization) inquiries and recall assistance. If we are unable to maintain a favorable relationship with Cardinal Health 105, we expect that our revenue would decline and our business would be harmed as a result. We may be unable to control the timing of the delivery of ZTlido, ELYXYB and GLOPERBA to distributors, and any financial uncertainty or loss of key logistic employees of Cardinal Health 105, as our only third-party logistics provider, may negatively impact our sales. If we fail to achieve certain milestones in our Product Development Agreement with Itochu and Oishi, we could lose rights that are important to our business. Certain of our existing license and supply agreements impose various milestone and other obligations on us. For example, under our Product Development Agreement with Itochu and Oishi, if our total net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of ZTlido and SP-103 for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, Itochu and Oishi have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement if the parties are unable to resolve the concerns after 30 days of good-faith negotiation. As of December 31, 2024, our net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 have not exceeded five percent of net sales. Accordingly, Oishi and 63 Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement. As of December 31, 2024, neither Oishi nor Itochu has exercised its right of termination. If we fail to achieve the milestones under the Product Development Agreement, we may lose our exclusivity rights or the counterparty may have the right to terminate the agreement, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and intend to rely on third parties to conduct all of our future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct any clinical trials. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as GCP requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as contract research organizations (“CROs”), to conduct GCP-compliant clinical trials of our product candidates properly and on time. While we have agreements governing their activities, we control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GCP-compliant clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount and timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with our investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For any violations of laws and regulations in the conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement actions that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution. Many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and intellectual property protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. Further, any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If the third parties conducting our clinical trials do not adequately perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience significant business challenges, disruptions or failures, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or successful commercialization in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable product candidate. Our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. We may in the future enter into collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, or strategic alliances with third parties that may not result in the development of commercially viable products or the generation of significant future revenues. Our business is substantially dependent upon the intellectual property licensed from Oishi and Itochu. In the ordinary course of our business, we may enter into collaborations, additional in-licensing arrangements (such as, for example, the Romeg License Agreement), joint ventures, or strategic alliances to develop proposed products and to pursue new markets. Proposing, negotiating and implementing collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances or partnerships may be a lengthy and complex process. Other companies, including those with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales, technology or other business resources, may compete with us for these opportunities or arrangements. We may not identify, secure or complete any such transactions or arrangements in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, and may not realize the anticipated benefits of any such transactions or arrangements. Additionally, with respect to current and future collaborations, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the transaction or arrangement, which could create the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions, and our collaborators may have economic or business interests or goals that are, or that may become, inconsistent with our business interests or goals. It is 64 possible that conflicts may arise with our collaborators, such as conflicts concerning the achievement of performance milestones, or the interpretation of significant terms under any agreement, such as those related to financial obligations or the ownership or control of intellectual property developed during the collaboration. If any conflicts arise with our current or future collaborators, they may act in their self-interest, which may be adverse to our best interest, and they may breach their obligations to us. In addition, we have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our current collaborators or any future collaborators devote to our collaborators’ or our future products. Disputes between us and our collaborators may result in litigation or arbitration which would increase our expenses and divert the attention of our management. Further, these transactions and arrangements are contractual in nature and may be terminated or dissolved under the terms of the applicable agreements and, in such event, we may not continue to have rights to the products relating to such transaction or arrangement or may need to purchase such rights at a premium. Delays in clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay our ability to obtain commercial approval and generate additional revenue. Before obtaining marketing approval for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates for their intended indications. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include: • delays in obtaining regulatory authorizations to commence a clinical trial or reaching a consensus with regulatory authorities on trial design; • delays in identifying prospective clinical investigators or clinical trial sites that have necessary qualifications, interest and capacity to perform a requested protocol; • delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites; • delays in obtaining approval from one or more institutional review boards (“IRBs”); • IRBs refusing to approve, suspending or terminating the trial at the investigational site, precluding enrollment of additional subjects, or withdrawing their approval of the trial; • changes to the clinical trial protocol; • delays in recruiting suitable subjects to participate in our clinical trials; • failure by us, any CROs we engage or any other third parties to adhere to clinical trial requirements; • failure to perform in accordance with GCPs; • delays in the testing, validation, manufacturing and delivery of our product candidates to the clinical sites, including delays by third parties with whom we have contracted to perform certain of those functions; • delays in subjects completing participation in a trial or returning for post-treatment follow-up; • clinical trial sites or subjects dropping out of a trial; • key investigators departing their clinical sites; • lack of adequate funding to continue the trial; • selection of clinical endpoints that require prolonged periods of clinical observation or analysis of the resulting data; • subjects experiencing severe or unexpected drug-related adverse effects; • imposition of a clinical hold by regulatory authorities as a result of a serious adverse event, after an inspection of our clinical trial operations, trial sites or manufacturing facilities, or for other reasons; • occurrence of serious adverse events in our trials or in trials of the same class of agents conducted by other sponsors; • changes in regulatory requirements or guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols; • a facility manufacturing our product candidates or any of their components being ordered by the FDA to temporarily or permanently shut down due to violations of cGMP regulations or other applicable requirements; • any changes to our manufacturing process that may be necessary or desired; • third-party clinical investigators losing the licenses or permits necessary to perform our clinical trials and/or not performing our clinical trials on our anticipated schedule or consistent with the clinical trial protocol, GCP, or other regulatory requirements; • third-party contractors not performing data collection or analysis in a timely or accurate manner; or • third-party contractors becoming debarred or suspended or otherwise penalized by the FDA or other government or regulatory authorities for violations of regulatory requirements, in which case we may need to find a substitute contractor, and we may not be able to use some or all of the data produced by subcontractors in support of our marketing applications. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or 65 our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, participants being exposed to unacceptable health risks, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals. The FDA and other regulatory agencies may impose new or refined testing expectations based on experience and increased knowledge over time. In addition, if we make manufacturing or other changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials, including our planned clinical trials of SP-103, SP-104 and SEMDEXA, will begin or continue as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. We may not have the necessary capabilities, including adequate staffing, to successfully manage the execution and completion of any clinical trials we initiate in a way that leads to our obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health pandemics or other health crises, which could cause significant disruptions in our operations and those of our CMOs, CROs and other third parties upon whom we rely. Health pandemics or other health crises, including COVID-19, have in the past and could again in the future result in a disruption of our businesses, delay our research and development programs and timelines, negatively impact our productivity and increase risks associated with cybersecurity. More specifically, these types of events may negatively impact personnel at third-party manufacturing facilities or the availability or cost of materials, which could disrupt our supply chain. Moreover, our clinical trials may be negatively affected. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources. Some patients may not be able or willing to comply with trial protocols if wide-spread health crisis impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Our ability to recruit and retain patients, principal investigators and site staff (who as healthcare providers may have heightened exposure) may be hindered, which would adversely affect our trial operations. In addition, we rely on independent clinical investigators, CROs and other third-party service providers to assist us in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out our clinical trials, including the collection of data from our trials, and the effects of health pandemics or other health crises may affect their ability to devote sufficient time and resources to our programs. As a result, the expected timeline for data readouts, including incompleteness in data collection and analysis and other related activities, and certain regulatory filings may be negatively impacted, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, the impact of such health pandemics or other health crises on the operations of the FDA or other regulatory authorities could negatively affect our planned trials and approval processes. Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates and the approval may be for a more narrow indication than we seek. We cannot commercialize our product candidates until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals. Even if our product candidates meet the safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the data may not be considered sufficient by regulatory authorities, those regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA advisory committee is convened, including if such advisory committee recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action or changes in regulatory authority policy or data requirements during the period of product development, clinical trials and the regulatory review process. Even if we receive regulatory approval, the FDA may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, black box warnings or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”). The FDA may require labeling that includes warnings and precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use, or may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA may not approve the labeling claims that are considered necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates. 66 Additionally, if the results of any clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may: • be delayed or fail in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates; • obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as we intended or desired; • obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings; • be subject to changes in the way the products are administered; • be required to perform additional clinical trials to support approval or be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements; • have regulatory authorities withdraw, or suspend, their approval of the product or impose restrictions on its distribution in the form of a modified REMS; • be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; or • experience damage to our reputation. We may find it difficult to enroll or maintain patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials of our product candidates. Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in any clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of any clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients and to complete required follow-up periods. If patients are unwilling to participate in our clinical trials due to negative publicity from adverse events, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and potentially obtaining regulatory approval may be delayed. We may also experience delays if patients withdraw from a clinical trial or do not complete the required monitoring period. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or termination of clinical trials altogether. Patient enrollment is affected by many factors, including: • the size and nature of the patient population; • the proximity of patients to clinical sites; • the eligibility and exclusion criteria for the trial; • the design of the clinical trial; • competing clinical trials; • the risk that enrolled patients will not complete a clinical trial; • ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment; • potential disruptions caused by COVID-19 (or other similar disruptions), including difficulties in initiating clinical sites, enrolling and retaining participants, diversion of healthcare resources away from clinical trials, travel or quarantine policies that may be implemented and other factors; • our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; and • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate in relation to other available products. The conditions for which we currently plan to evaluate our product candidates are common, but the eligibility criteria of our clinical trials limit the pool of available trial participants. For example, we experienced a delay in the enrollment of our now completed SEMDEXA Phase 3 clinical trial in sciatica due to the selective eligibility criteria in place to reduce the placebo effect and the impacts of COVID-19, and may experience similar issues with enrollment of our other planned clinical trials. Under the federal Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (the “FDORA”), sponsors are required to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug product. These plans are meant to encourage enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for diversity action plans. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the diversity action plan guidance, when finalized, will have the force of law. In January 2025, in response to an executive order issued by President Trump on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the FDA removed this draft guidance from its website. The implications of this action are not yet known. If we are not able to adhere to any new requirements, our ability to conduct clinical trials may be delayed or halted. In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to it, because some patients who have 67 opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by a competitor. We may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates are based on estimates and third-party sources. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability might be materially and adversely affected. Periodically, we make estimates regarding the incidence and prevalence of target patient populations of our product candidates based on various third-party sources and internally generated analyses and use such estimates in making decisions regarding our product development strategy, including acquiring or in-licensing product candidates and determining indications on which to focus in preclinical studies or clinical trials. These estimates may be inaccurate or based on imprecise data. For example, the total addressable market opportunities will depend on, among other things, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, drug pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients in the addressable markets may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our product candidates, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We face significant competition and our competitors may discover, develop or commercialize products faster or more successfully than us. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid technological advances. In addition, the competition in the pain management market, and other relevant markets, is intense. ZTlido and our product candidate, SP-103, face and will likely face competition from other prescription patches, generic topical lidocaine patches, and OTC lidocaine patches, including Lidoderm ® , generic lidocaine patches manufactured by Mylan N.V., Teva and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and various OTC patches. Additionally, SP-103, if approved, will likely compete with various opioid pain medications, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants and anticonvulsants particularly as we seek approval for the treatment of chronic neck pain. SEMDEXA, if approved, has the potential to become the first FDA-approved epidural steroid product for the treatment of sciatica. While there are currently no FDA approved epidural steroid injections indicated for the treatment of sciatica, we are aware of certain non-steroid product candidates in development. SEMDEXA, if approved, also will compete with various opioid pain medications, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and surgical procedures. Procedures may include nerve blocks and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulations. We may also face indirect competition from the off-label and unapproved use of branded and generic injectable steroids. While there are currently no formulations containing naltrexone in clinical development for the treatment of fibromyalgia, we are aware of certain non-opioid therapeutics currently in a late-stage phase 3 pipeline containing two 505(b)(2) development programs. Our product candidate, SP-104, will likely face direct competition from these candidates. We expect that the market will become increasingly competitive in the future. Many of our competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs and have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in developing product candidates and technologies, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of product candidates, formulating and manufacturing product candidates, and launching, marketing and selling product candidates. Additional mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. As a result, these companies may obtain regulatory approval more rapidly than we are able to and may be more effective in selling and marketing their products as well. Smaller or early-stage companies or generic or biosimilar pharmaceutical manufacturers may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we are currently developing or that we may develop. If approved, our product 68 candidates will face competition from commercially available drugs as well as drugs that are in the development pipelines of our competitors and later enter the market. Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, receiving FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing medicines before we do, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The third-party payor coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB or our product candidates, if approved, could decrease our ability to generate product revenue. There is significant uncertainty related to the third-party coverage and reimbursement of existing and newly approved products. Market acceptance and sales of ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates, if approved, in domestic markets will depend significantly on the availability of coverage and adequacy of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid) and private payor healthcare and insurance programs. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement for ZTlido can differ significantly from payor to payor, and we may not be able to maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement in the future. Further, 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 us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained or applied consistently. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. Additionally, coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Assuming that coverage is obtained for a given product, the resulting reimbursement rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments or co-insurance that patients find unacceptably high. Patients, physicians, and other healthcare providers may be less likely to prescribe, dispense or use, as applicable, any approved product unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost. The market for our products will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded product in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded product when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available. In addition, even if we obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, products. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that pharmaceutical companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices for products. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. If coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability. Furthermore, the requirements governing medical product pricing vary widely from country to country. In some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a prescription device must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Our product candidate SEMDEXA is expected to be a physician-administered injectable viscous gel and as such, separate reimbursement for the product itself may not be available. Instead, if SEMDEXA receives regulatory approval, the administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which SEMDEXA is used. To the extent separate coverage and reimbursement should become available for SEMDEXA, we anticipate that it will be sold to physicians on a “buy and bill” basis. Buy and bill products must be purchased by healthcare providers before they can be administered to patients. Healthcare providers subsequently must seek reimbursement for the product from the applicable third-party payor, such as Medicare or a health insurance company. Healthcare providers may be reluctant to administer our product candidates, if approved, because they would have to fund the purchase of the product and then seek reimbursement, which may be lower than their purchase price, or because they do not want the additional administrative burden required to obtain reimbursement for the product. Further, the codes used by providers to bill for SEMDEXA, if approved, could also affect reimbursement. J-Codes are codes maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which are a component of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and are typically used to report injectable drugs that ordinarily cannot be self-administered. We do not have a specific J-Code for any of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved, we may apply for one but cannot guarantee that a J-Code will 69 be granted. To the extent separate coverage or reimbursement is available for any product candidate, if approved, and a specific J-Code is not available, physicians would need to use a non-specific miscellaneous J-Code to bill third-party payors for these physician-administered drugs. Because miscellaneous J-Codes may be used for a wide variety of products, health plans may have more difficulties determining the actual product used and billed for the patient. These claims must often be submitted with additional information and manually processed, which can create delays in claims processing times as well as increasing the likelihood for claim denials and claim errors. Because we have multiple programs and product candidates in our development pipeline and are pursuing a variety of target indications and treatment approaches, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on development opportunities or product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Apart from our FDA-approved products, ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB, we currently have several product candidates that are at various stages of development. We have limited financial and management resources. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with potential target indications or product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential than our current and planned development programs and product candidates. We strive to progress product candidates that can address unmet or underserved medical needs and favor those candidates with large market opportunities. However, our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial product candidates or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and other future product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such future product candidates. Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses or acquisitions of product candidates or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a successful product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment. Drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, and can take many years to complete, in part because it is subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may not agree with the proposed analysis plans or trial design for the clinical trials of our product candidates. They may also not agree with the scope of our proposed investigational plan. In addition, the outcome of our clinical trials is risky and uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. It is not uncommon for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful. This product candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in the planned clinical trials compared to the completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed through preclinical to early and late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for late stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve their intended objectives. A Phase 3 trial was completed for SEMDEXA for the treatment of sciatica, a Phase 2 trial was completed for SP-103 in 2023, and multiple Phase 1 trials were completed in the first half of 2022 for SP-104. We may not have the necessary capabilities, including adequate staffing, to successfully manage the execution and completion of such clinical trials in a way that leads to our obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all. Our clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and, in the future, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials and preclinical studies in addition to those we have planned. 70 In March 2022, we announced final results from our Phase 3 trial for SEMDEXA, which reflect positive results with respect to primary and secondary endpoints, and we intend to use the results to support a NDA submission seeking approval for the treatment of sciatica. In November 2023, we had a Type C meeting with the FDA to discuss the requirements for filing a 505(b)(2) NDA for SEMDEXA. In the Type C meeting, the FDA indicated that it disagreed with us that the clinical data we had collected was sufficient to support the safety and efficacy of SEMDEXA. The FDA provided guidance regarding expectations for the additional confirmatory trial needed prior to a 505(b)(2) NDA filing and the circumstances under which one adequate and well-controlled trial would be sufficient for product registration. In February 2024, we had a Type D meeting with the FDA to preview a newly designed trial, in order to reduce the potential need for any other additional trials prior to a 505(b)(2) NDA filing. During the Type D meeting, the FDA provided further guidance with respect to efficacy requirements and expectations on the size of safety database needed to help best position us to be able to satisfy the requirements for a 505(b)(2) pathway approval. Our failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates would prevent regulatory approval and, ultimately, the commercialization of that product for the proposed indication for use. Interim “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. From time to time, we may publish interim “top-line” or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data. Preliminary or interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or interim data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials or clinical trial sites for the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial procedures and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. Data disclosures must be carefully managed to conform to limitations on preapproval promotion and laws related to clinical trial registration and posting of results. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and stockholders may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular drug, product, product candidate or our business. If the “top-line” data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive non-clinical studies, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We cannot be certain that our current clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for support of a marketing approval, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct 71 additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for a product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. Even if we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize any of them in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential. In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and efficacy. Approval by the FDA in the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. In cases where data from United States clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the foreign countries, the standards for clinical trials and approval may be different. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and increased costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any product we develop will be impeded. Our business may suffer reputational harm due to failures of our product candidates. The failure of any of our product candidates could have a lasting negative impact on our reputation, which could, in turn, impact our ability to successfully enter into future licensing arrangements or other transactions with potential counterparties, raise future capital or attract key personnel to join us. As a result, our business and prospects would be materially harmed and our results of operations and financial condition would likely suffer materially. ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB may have undesirable properties that could result in significant negative consequences, and our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval. As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates. In the event that ZTlido, GLOPERBA or ELYXYB is identified to have undesirable side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could occur. Regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product or seize the product. Restrictions may be imposed on the manufacturing or marketing of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or ELYXYB or any component thereof, including the imposition of a REMS plan that may require creation of a Medication Guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients, as well as elements to assure safe use of the product, such as a patient registry and training and certification of prescribers. Any of these events could damage our reputation and prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or ELYXYB. In the clinical trials we conduct with our product candidates, patients may experience changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, discomforts or a fatal outcome. Often, it is not possible to determine whether the product candidate being studied caused or was associated with these conditions. In addition, it is possible that as we test our clinical products in larger, longer and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in earlier clinical trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous clinical trials, will be reported by subjects. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in large-scale, Phase 3 clinical trial. In the event that our product candidates reveal an unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects, the clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates, for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly. ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates are complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience delays in satisfying regulatory authorities or manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs, limit the supply of our product candidates, or otherwise harm our business. 72 We currently depend on contract manufacturers to conduct the manufacturing and supply activities for ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates. Manufacturing these product candidates require facilities specifically designed for and validated for this purpose and sophisticated quality assurance and quality control procedures are necessary. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers. If contaminations are discovered in our supply of ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB or our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We may not be successful in securing additional sources at all or on a timely basis, which could materially harm our development timelines. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to begin new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely. In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with cGMP, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay clinical trials or product launches, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, our manufacturers may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our complex manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biotechnology companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our manufacturing process could restrict our ability to meet potential future market demand for products, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Risks Related to our Business and Operations If we are unable to retain our key executives, it may delay our development efforts and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. If we are not able to attract, retain and motivate key executives to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our overall business strategy. In particular, we are highly dependent upon our executive officers, including Jaisim Shah, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Henry Ji, Ph.D., our Executive Chairperson, and Stephen Ma, our Chief Financial Officer. The loss of services of these executive officers could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical trials and the successful commercialization of ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB. We do not carry “key person” insurance on any of our executive officers or other employees. Competition for key executives in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals field is intense, due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. Many of the pharmaceutical companies against which we compete for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They may also provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to qualified candidates than what we have to offer. In addition, regulation or legislation impacting the workforce, such as the proposed rule published by the Federal Trade Commission which would, if issued, generally prevent employers from entering into non-compete agreements with employees and require employers to rescind existing non-compete agreements, may lead to increased uncertainty in hiring and competition for talent. Further, we may experience employee turnover as a result of the ongoing “great resignation” occurring throughout the U.S. economy, which has impacted job market dynamics. New hires require training and take time before they achieve full productivity. New employees may not become as productive as we expect, and we may be unable to hire or retain sufficient numbers of qualified individuals. Moreover, we conduct our operations in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region that is home to many other biopharmaceutical companies as well as many academic and research institutions, resulting in fierce competition for qualified personnel. As such, we could have difficulty attracting and retaining experienced executives and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our recruitment and retention efforts. 73 We may need to increase the size of our company and may not effectively manage our growth. As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately 115 full-time employees. We may need to continue to expand our managerial, operational, sales and marketing, finance and other resources in order to manage our operations, clinical trials, research and development activities, regulatory filings, manufacturing and supply activities, and any marketing and commercialization activities, including co-promotion activities. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including: • identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees; • managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical, FDA and internal regulatory review process for our product candidates, while complying with our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties; and • improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, if any, which may cause a significant strain on our management, and our operational, financial and other resources. Our ability to manage our growth effectively will require us to implement and improve our operational, financial and management systems and to expand, train, manage and motivate our employees. These demands may require the hiring of additional management personnel and the development of additional expertise by management. Any increase in resources devoted to research and product development without a corresponding increase in our operational, financial and management systems could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. There is no assurance that we will complete the Business Combination with respect to the sale of our wholly owned subsidiary, Semnur, and/or our SP-102 product candidate, under the terms of the Merger Agreement or otherwise and the failure to complete the Business Combination could adversely affect our stock price and future business and financial results. As previously announced, our Board authorized our management to explore ways in which to maximize the value of Semnur and SP-102 (SEMDEXA™), the product candidate held by Semnur, for us and our stockholders, including by way of conducting a spin-off, merger, dividend, reclassification or other similar transaction. On August 30, 2024, Semnur entered into a Merger Agreement (the “Semnur Business Combination Agreement”) with Denali Capital Acquisition Corp. (“Denali”) and Denali Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Denali (“Denali Merger Sub”), in connection with a business combination (the “Business Combination”). The consummation of the Business Combination is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of a number of closing conditions of the respective parties. The completion of the Business Combination is not assured and is subject to risks, including, among others, the risk that approval of the Business Combination by Denali’s shareholders is not obtained or that other closing conditions are not satisfied. There is also no assurance the Business Combination will actually maximize the value of Semnur and/or the SP-102 asset for us or our stockholders. In addition, we will remain liable for significant transaction costs, including legal, accounting and financial advisory fees. Furthermore, the market price of our Common Stock may reflect various market assumptions as to whether the Business Combination will occur. Consequently, the failure to complete the Business Combination could result in a significant change in the market price of our Common Stock. Our insurance policies are expensive and protect us only from some business risks, which leaves us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities. Although we endeavor to obtain appropriate insurance coverage for insurable risks that we identify, we do not carry insurance for all categories of risk that our business may encounter. Insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. We have observed rapidly changing conditions in the insurance markets relating to nearly all areas of traditional corporate insurance. Such conditions have resulted in higher premium costs, higher policy deductibles and lower coverage limits. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost, or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. While we maintain property, casualty and general liability coverage, we do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and our insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended. We do not know if we will be able to maintain existing insurance with adequate levels of coverage. Any significant uninsured liability may require us to pay substantial amounts, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. 74 Manufacturing and marketing of ZTlido, GLOPERBA and ELYXYB and clinical testing of our product candidates may expose us to individual product liability claims, class action lawsuits or actions, and other individual or mass tort claims. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. In addition, physicians may misuse our products with their patients if they are not adequately trained, potentially leading to injury and increased risk of product liability. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of risks inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates, if approved. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: • loss of revenue from product sales; • decreased demand for our product candidates or products that we develop; • injury to our reputation; • withdrawal of clinical trial participants; • initiation of investigations by regulators; • restrictions on labeling, the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory product recalls; • costs to defend the related litigation; • a diversion of management’s time and our resources; • substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients; and • the inability to commercialize our product candidates. Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of any products we develop. We currently carry product liability insurance covering use in our clinical trials in the amount of $10.0 million in the aggregate. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. Any disruption in our research and development facilities could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our principal executive offices are in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Our facilities may be affected by natural or man-made disasters. Earthquakes are of particular significance since our facilities are located in an earthquake-prone area. We are also vulnerable to damage from other types of disasters, including power loss, attacks from extremist organizations, fires, floods and similar events. If our facilities are affected by a natural or man-made disaster, we may be forced to curtail our operations and/or rely on third parties to perform some or all of our research and development activities. Although we believe we possess adequate insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business from casualties, such insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In the future, we may choose to expand our operations in either our existing facilities or in new facilities. If we expand our worldwide manufacturing locations, there can be no assurance that this expansion will occur without implementation difficulties, or at all. We may seek to grow our business through acquisitions and may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, and acquisitions can be costly and dilutive. Our success depends on our ability to continually enhance and broaden our product offerings in response to changing customer demands, competitive pressures, technologies and market pressures. Accordingly, from time to time we may expand our business and intellectual property portfolio through the acquisition of new businesses and technologies. We cannot assure that we will achieve anticipated benefits from any acquisition to justify the transaction. Competition within our industry for acquisitions of businesses, technologies and assets may become intense. Even if we are able to identify an acquisition that we would like to consummate, we may not be able to complete the acquisition on commercially reasonable 75 terms or the target may be acquired by another company. We may enter into negotiations for acquisitions that are not ultimately consummated. Those negotiations could result in diversion of management time and significant out-of-pocket costs. The success of any acquisition depends on, among other things, our ability to combine our business with an acquired business in a manner that does not materially disrupt existing relationships and that allows us to achieve development and operational synergies. If we are unable to achieve these objectives, the anticipated benefits of an acquisition may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. If we are obligated to make any milestone payments in connection with an acquisition or licensing agreement, such obligations could impose substantial additional costs on us and divert resources from other aspects of our business. In addition, if we undertake such a transaction, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses or acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expenses. As a result, an acquisition may not be accretive to our stock value or development pipeline in the near or long term. We expect to incur higher development and regulatory costs, and additional costs integrating the operations and personnel of any companies we acquire, which cannot be estimated accurately at this time. If the total costs of the integration of our companies and advancement of acquired product candidates and technologies exceed the anticipated benefits of the acquisition, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. International components of our business expose us to business, legal, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States. We currently collaborate with international manufacturing partners and may potentially expand our business internationally in the future. The purchase and shipment of components from international sources subjects us to U.S. and foreign governmental trade, import and export, and customs regulations and laws. Compliance with these regulations and laws is costly and exposes us to penalties for non-compliance. Other laws and regulations that can significantly impact us include various anti-bribery laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), as well as export controls laws. Any failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory obligations could impact us in a variety of ways that include, but are not limited to, significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, including imprisonment of individuals, fines and penalties, denial of export privileges, seizure of shipments, restrictions on certain business activities and exclusion or debarment from government contracting. Moreover, the new administration has substantially altered prior U.S. government international trade policy and has commenced activities to renegotiate, or potentially terminate, certain existing bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements and treaties with foreign countries. In addition, the new administration has initiated or is considering imposing tariffs on certain foreign goods. Related to this action, certain foreign governments, including China, have instituted or are considering imposing tariffs on certain U.S. goods. It remains unclear what the new administration or foreign governments will or will not do with respect to tariffs or other international trade agreements and policies. A trade war or other governmental action related to tariffs or international trade agreements or policies has the potential to disrupt our research activities, affect our suppliers, increase the cost of materials purchased to manufacture our products, impact our ability to sell our products outside the United States or to sell our products outside the United States at competitive prices and/or to affect the United States or global economy or certain sectors thereof and, thus, could adversely impact our business. Conducting business internationally involves a number of risks, including: • multiple, sometimes conflicting and changing laws and regulations such as tax laws, export and import restrictions, employment laws, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, regulatory requirements and other governmental approvals, permits and licenses; • difficulties in enforcing our intellectual property rights and in defending against third-party threats and intellectual property enforcement actions against us, our distributors or any of our third-party suppliers; • failure by us or our distributors to obtain appropriate licenses or regulatory approvals for the sale or use of our product candidates, if approved, in various countries; • difficulties in managing foreign operations; • cost and availability of shipping and other means of product transportation; • foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations; • changes in duties and tariffs, license obligations and other non-tariff barriers to trade; • the imposition of new trade restrictions; • difficulties in enforcing agreements and collecting receivables through certain foreign legal systems; • complexities associated with managing multiple payor-reimbursement regimes or self-pay systems; 76 • natural disasters, political and economic instability, including wars, terrorism and political unrest, outbreak of disease, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions; and • failure to comply with the FCPA, including its books and records provisions and its anti-bribery provisions, and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in other jurisdictions, for example, by failing to maintain accurate information and control over sales or distributors’ activities. Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges. Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our research, product candidates, investigational medicines and the diseases our product candidates and investigational medicines are being developed to treat. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of non-compliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical study or to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we may fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our product candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. Furthermore, our employees, affiliates and/or business partners may use social media for their personal use, and their activities on social media or in other forums could result in adverse publicity for us. Any negative publicity as a result of social media posts, whether or not such claims are accurate, could adversely impact us. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions, or incur other harm to our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our business and operations would suffer in the event of a system failure. While we have implemented and maintain security measures, our computer systems and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to, and have experienced, computer viruses, unauthorized access, cybersecurity attacks, and other security incidents, including as perpetrated by hackers, or as the result of natural disasters, terrorism, war, or telecommunications or electrical failures. For example, there was a cyberattack on Change Healthcare in March 2024. We worked diligently with our co-pay savings card adjudicators to resolve the breakdown of processing of insurance claims by Change Healthcare, and restored the co-pay savings card processing for ZTlido and ELYXYB, which has been restored to normal operations. This incident did not have a material impact on the Company as a whole. A material system failure or security breach, if such an event were to occur, could result in a material disruption of our product development programs or a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing, or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce such data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in the loss of or damage to our data or applications, or the unauthorized disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, including personal data, we could incur material legal liability or be the subject of legal claims, suffer damage to our reputation, lose or harm our intellectual property rights, and delay the continued research, development and commercial efforts of ZTlido, GLOPERBA, ELYXYB and our product candidates, if approved. If we are held liable for a claim against which we are not insured or for damages exceeding the limits of our insurance coverage, whether arising out of cybersecurity matters or some other matter, that claim could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Further, a security incident or privacy violation of the Company, those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants that leads to the unauthorized acquisition, interruption, modification, loss, theft, corruption, interference, or other unauthorized disclosure of, or prevents access to, personal data, including patient data or other protected health information, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal or state breach notification laws and foreign equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect personal data, resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue. Our ability, and the ability of our CROs and other contractors and consultants, to effectively manage and maintain our internal business information, and to ship products to customers and invoice them on a timely basis, depends significantly on our enterprise resource planning system and other information systems. Portions of our information technology systems and those of our CROs’ and other contractors’ and consultants may experience, and have experienced, interruptions, delays, or cessations of service or produce errors in connection with ongoing systems implementation work. Cybersecurity attacks in particular are continually evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, ransomware, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data under our custody or control, and other electronic security breaches that could lead, and have led to disruptions in systems, misappropriation of confidential or otherwise protected information, and corruption of data. If we, our CROs and other contractors and consultants are unable to prevent such cybersecurity attacks or privacy violations or implement satisfactory remedial measures, our 77 operations could be disrupted, we may suffer loss of reputation, we may be the subject of governmental investigations, legal claims, or litigation, or we may incur financial loss or other regulatory penalties, each of which may not be covered by our insurance and may be material to our Company as a whole. In addition, these breaches and other unauthorized access to our systems can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying any such event may lead to increased harm of the type described above. Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and results of operations. As widely reported, global credit and financial markets have experienced volatility and disruptions in the past several years, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability, as well as the continued hostilities between Russia and Ukraine and