AEON Biopharma (AEON) Risk Analysis

We may not commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agencies, and we may never receive such approvals. Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. As a company, we are conducting and overseeing the conduct of preclinical and clinical studies of ABP-450 through contracts with CROs. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical studies have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. In October 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The Phase 2 clinical trial for episodic migraine did not meet its primary endpoint, though it did show statistical significance on multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, including the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in monthly migraine days and 75% in monthly migraine days during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and improvements on certain patient and rating scales. We may experience numerous unforeseen events prior to, during, or as a result of, clinical studies that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or to commercialize ABP-450 in our proposed therapeutic indications, including the following: - delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory authorities on the design or implementation of our clinical studies;- regulators or institutional review boards and ethics committees may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical study or conduct a clinical study at a prospective study site;- delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical study sites;- delays or failures by Daewoong to comply with cGMPs or other applicable requirements, or to provide sufficient supply of ABP-450 for use in our clinical studies;- the number of patients required for clinical studies of ABP-450 in our proposed therapeutic indications may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical studies may be slower than we anticipate, participants may drop out of these clinical studies at a higher rate than we anticipate or fail to return for post-treatment follow-up or we may fail to recruit suitable patients to participate in a study;- clinical studies of ABP-450 in our proposed therapeutic indications may produce negative or inconclusive results;- imposition of a clinical hold by regulatory authorities as a result of a serious adverse event, concerns with a class of product candidates or after an inspection of our clinical study operations, study sites or manufacturing facilities;- occurrence of serious adverse events associated with ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits;- changes in regulatory requirements and guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols;- we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical studies or abandon product development programs; or - the impacts of any public health outbreaks (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) on our ongoing and planned clinical studies. Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue from future product sales or other sources. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to ABP-450, we may need to conduct additional testing to bridge our modified product candidate to earlier versions. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize ABP-450, if approved in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, or allow our competitors to bring competing products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize ABP-450 and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, if the results of our clinical studies are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, we may: - be delayed in obtaining marketing approval, or not obtain marketing approval at all;- obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;- obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings or be subject to the addition of labeling statements, such as warnings or contraindications;- be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements;- be required to perform additional clinical studies 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 REMS;- be sued; or - experience damage to our reputation. Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical studies will begin as planned, need to be restructured or be completed on schedule, if at all. Additionally, the impacts of any public health outbreaks (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) on our projected milestones is uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. Further, we, the FDA, a foreign regulatory authority, an ethics committee or an institutional review board may suspend our clinical studies at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a study in accordance with regulatory requirements, including the FDA's current Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agency finds deficiencies in our investigational new drug applications, or INDs, or clinical study applications, respectively, or the conduct of these studies. Moreover, to the extent our filing schedule for a new IND is dependent on further preclinical or manufacturing progress, we may not be able to file such INDs on the timelines we expect. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical studies. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical studies, or if we terminate a clinical study prior to completion, the commercial prospects of ABP-450 could be negatively impacted, and our ability to generate revenue from ABP-450 may be delayed. Additionally, certain of our scientific advisors or consultants who receive compensation from us are likely to be investigators for our future clinical studies. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical study site and the utility of the clinical study itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of ABP-450 in one or more indications. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical study of ABP-450, the commercial prospects of ABP-450 will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical studies will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues which may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to seek, obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our technologies. We and Daewoong currently rely upon a combination of trademarks, trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements and proprietary know-how. Additionally, Daewoong has obtained a United States patent related to its proprietary botulinum toxin manufacturing process. We also intend to protect our proprietary technology and methods by, among other things, filing for and obtaining United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, methods of use, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. However, due to existing patent eligibility laws, we do not expect to obtain patent protection for the composition of matter for botulinum toxin, as it is produced by Clostridium botulinum, a gram-positive, rod-shaped, anaerobic, spore-forming, motile bacterium with the ability to produce the botulinum toxin. Although we only own one issued patent covering our migraine injection paradigm (U.S. Patent No. 11,826,405), we do not own any other issued patents, but we have filed certain provisional and non-provisional patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, related to other novel and proprietary methods of utilizing ABP-450 for therapeutic purposes. These patent applications may fail to result in any issued patents with claims that cover ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, in the United States or in other foreign countries, and the patents, if issued, may be declared invalid or unenforceable. The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent applications and patents due to the subject matter claimed in such patent applications and patents being in disclosures in the public domain. In addition, it is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our R&D output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our R&D output, such as our employees and third-party consultants, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent any third party from using any of our technology that is in the public domain to compete with ABP-450 and any future product candidates. Other parties have developed technologies that may be related to or competitive to our own technologies and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have obtained or may obtain patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our patent applications or any future issued patents. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to ABP-450 and any future product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether the inventors of our pending patent applications were the first to make the inventions claimed in those patent applications, or that they were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. If a third party can establish that we were not the first to make or the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, our patent applications may not issue and any patents, if issued, may be challenged and invalidated or rendered unenforceable. Even in the event our non-provisional patent applications are granted, or if we in-license issued patent rights from third parties, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and any such patents may be challenged in courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad and later declared invalid or unenforceable. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO challenging the validity of one or more claims of any such patents. A third party may also claim that any such patents are invalid or unenforceable in a litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. An adverse result in any legal proceeding could put any such patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could allow third parties to commercialize our products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, we may become involved in derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings and other similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings) challenging the validity, priority or other features of patentability of any such patent rights. Challenges to our patent rights may result in loss of patent rights, exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the scope and duration of the patent protection of ABP-450 or future product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of botulinum toxins, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after they are commercialized. As a result, our patent applications, even if issued, may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to ABP-450 or future product candidates, including biosimilar versions of such products. Even if they are unchallenged, our pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. If the patent protection provided by our patent applications, if issued, is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates could be negatively affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Under the Daewoong Agreement, we license the trademark for Nabota associated with ABP-450 from Daewoong; however, we may ultimately pursue alternative trademarks and branding for ABP-450. Our or Daewoong's trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information and those of our future licensors could be disclosed or competitors could otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we or any of our current or future licensors may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our or their intellectual property both in the United States and internationally. If we or any of our current or future licensors are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to ABP-450 to third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business. In addition to the protection afforded by patents, trademarks, confidentiality agreements and proprietary know-how, we may in the future rely upon in-licensed or acquired patents or proprietary technology for the development of ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications. We may not be able to in-license third party patents necessary to commercialize ABP-450 on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could materially harm our business. Even if we are able to in-license any such necessary intellectual property, it could be on nonexclusive terms, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have licensed, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign ABP-450 or future product candidates, or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis, and we may have to abandon development of ABP-450 or future product candidates which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, the strength of any patents that issue from our non-provisional patent applications or that we may in-license from third parties in the technology and healthcare fields involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of any patent rights in such fields can be uncertain. Our pending patent applications and any patent applications that we may in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, in the United States or in other foreign countries, and the issued patents that we may in-license may be declared invalid or unenforceable. We are reliant on the ability of Daewoong, as the licensor of our only product candidate, to maintain its intellectual property and protect its intellectual property against misappropriation, infringement or other violation. We may not have primary control over Daewoong's or our future licensors' patent prosecution activities. Furthermore, we may not be allowed to comment on prosecution strategies, and patent applications currently being prosecuted may be abandoned by the patent owner without our knowledge or consent. With respect to patents that are issued to our licensors, or patents that may issue on patent applications, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. As a licensee, we are reliant on Daewoong and our future licensors to defend any third-party claims. Our licensors may not defend or prosecute such actions as vigorously or in the manner that we would have if entitled to do so, and we may be impacted by any judgment or settlement resulting from such actions. Also, a third party may challenge the validity of our in-licensing transactions. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, any of our future in-licensed patents and patent applications may not adequately protect the licensors or our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around their or our claims.

Marketing approval of biologics in the United States requires the submission of a BLA to the FDA. A BLA must be supported by extensive clinical and preclinical data, as well as extensive information regarding pharmacology, chemistry, manufacturing and controls. FDA approval of a BLA is not guaranteed, and the review and approval process is an expensive and uncertain process that may take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the approval process. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that our product candidate, ABP-450, is safe and effective for its intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe that the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates, including ABP-450, are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval for further development, manufacturing or commercialization of our product candidates by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program, requiring their alteration. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical studies that will be required for BLA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or the condition that the product candidate is designed to treat and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. The FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including the following: - a product candidate may not be deemed safe, effective, pure or potent;- the data from preclinical studies and clinical studies may not be deemed sufficient;- the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies might not approve our third-party manufacturers' processes or facilities;- deficiencies in the formulation, quality control, labeling, or specifications of a product candidate or in response to citizen petitions or similar documents filed in connection with the product candidate;- a general requirement intended to address risks associated with a class of drugs, such as a new risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, requirement for botulinum toxins;- the enactment of new laws or promulgation of new regulations that change the approval requirements; or - the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies may change their approval policies or adopt new regulations. If ABP-450 fails to demonstrate safety and efficacy in our clinical studies or does not gain approval in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, our business and results of operations will be materially and adversely harmed. We are currently pursuing three main therapeutic indications for ABP-450, and our business presently depends entirely on our ability to obtain regulatory approvals for ABP-450 for our planned indications and to successfully commercialize it in a timely manner. To date, as an organization, we have completed one clinical study related to the therapeutic use of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia. In October 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The Phase 2 clinical trial for episodic migraine did not meet its primary endpoint, though it did show statistical significance on multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, including the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in monthly migraine days and 75% in monthly migraine days during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and improvements on certain patient and rating scales. We have no biological products currently approved for sale and we may never be able to develop marketable products. We are not permitted to market ABP-450 in the United States unless we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA, in the European Union unless we receive approval of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, from the EMA, in Canada unless we receive approval of a new drug submission, or NDS, from Health Canada or in any other countries permitted under the Daewoong Agreement, unless we receive the requisite approval from the applicable regulatory authorities in such countries. We will need to conduct a significant amount of clinical testing before we receive regulatory approval for any of our planned indications, and we do not know if or when we will receive any such approvals or whether we will need to make modifications or significant additional expenditures to obtain any such approvals. We can provide no assurances that ABP-450 will be successful in clinical studies or will ultimately receive regulatory approval in any therapeutic indication. Even if ABP-450 demonstrates efficacy, our injection protocols, including the selection of injection sites and amount of product injected at each injection site, may produce negative or inconclusive results or may result in the occurrence of serious adverse events. In addition, if we receive approval in one country for an indication, we may not receive a similar approval in any other jurisdiction, or in the same country for a different indication. Even if regulatory approvals for one or more of our therapeutic indications are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize ABP-450. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities, including by obtaining approval for coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payors, but we may not be successful in such a transition. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of ABP-450 in each of our therapeutic indications to continue our business.

The price of common stock may fluctuate for many reasons, including as a result of public announcements regarding the progress of development efforts for our main product candidate, ABP-450, the development efforts of competitors, the addition or departure of key personnel, variations in quarterly operating results and changes in market valuations of biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This risk is especially relevant to us because biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years, including since the Closing. In addition, recently there has been significant stock price volatility involving the shares of companies that have recently completed a business combination with a SPAC. When the market price of a stock has been volatile as our common stock's price may be, holders of that stock have occasionally brought securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. Additionally, there has recently been a general increase in litigation against companies that have recently completed a business combination with a SPAC alleging fraud and other claims based on inaccurate or misleading disclosures. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit of this type against us, even if the lawsuit is without merit, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Any such lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of management.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, or interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us, any of which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. We are currently unable to predict whether such changes will occur and, if so, the ultimate impact on our business. To the extent that such changes have a negative impact on us or our suppliers, including as a result of related uncertainty, these changes may materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We are subject to data privacy and protection laws and regulations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally identifying information or personal data, which among other things, impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business. Failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could result in enforcement action against us, including fines, imprisonment of company officials and public censure, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. There are numerous United States federal and state laws and regulations relating to privacy and security of personal information. Data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect. For example, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires companies that process information on California residents to make new disclosures to consumers about their data collection, use and sharing practices, allow consumers to opt out of certain data sharing with third parties and provide a new cause of action for data breaches. Additionally, California voters approved a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, in the November 3, 2020 election. Effective starting on January 1, 2023, the CPRA significantly modifies the CCPA, including by expanding consumers' rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also created a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. New legislation proposed or enacted in various other states will continue to shape the data privacy environment nationally. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to confidential, sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted breach notification laws that may require us to notify patients, employees or regulators in the event of unauthorized access to or disclosure of personal or confidential information experienced by us or our service providers. These laws are not consistent, and compliance in the event of a widespread data breach is difficult and may be costly. Moreover, states have been frequently amending existing laws, requiring attention to changing regulatory requirements. We also may be contractually required to notify patients or other counterparties of a security breach. Although we may have contractual protections with our service providers, any actual or perceived security breach could harm our reputation and brand, expose us to potential liability or require us to expend significant resources on data security and in responding to any such actual or perceived breach. Any contractual protections we may have from our service providers may not be sufficient to adequately protect us from any such liabilities and losses, and we may be unable to enforce any such contractual protections. In addition, the GDPR became applicable on May 25, 2018 in respect of processing operations carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment in the European Economic Area, or EEA, and any processing relating to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA and/or the monitoring of their behavior in the EEA. While we do not at this time collect, store, use or process data on behalf of existing customers or for anyone residing in the United Kingdom or Europe, if we do so in the future, we will be subject to the rigorous and time-intensive policies of the GDPR. There is no assurance that our own limited privacy and security- related safeguards will protect us from all risks associated with data privacy and information security.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, vendors and other agents may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates applicable regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to regulatory agencies, manufacturing standards, and federal and state healthcare laws and regulations. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. We could face liability under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and similar state laws. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, referrals, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of individually identifiable information, including, without limitation, information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in significant regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Further, should violations include promotion of unapproved (off-label) uses of one or more of our products, we could face significant regulatory sanctions for unlawful promotion, as well as substantial penalties under the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, and similar state laws. Similar concerns could exist in jurisdictions outside of the United States as well. We adopted, in connection with the completion of the Business Combination, a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. The precautions we take to detect and prevent misconduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on third-party vendors to provide critical services, including, among other things, services related to accounting, billing, human resources, and information technology that we cannot or do not provide ourselves. We depend on these vendors to ensure that our corporate infrastructure will consistently meet our business requirements. The ability of these third-party vendors to successfully provide reliable and high quality services is subject to technical and operational uncertainties that are beyond our control. While we may be entitled to damages if our vendors fail to perform under their agreements with us, the amount of damages we receive may be limited. In addition, we do not know whether we will be able to collect on any award of damages or that these damages would be sufficient to cover the actual costs we would incur as a result of any vendor's failure to perform under its agreement with us. Any failure of our corporate infrastructure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Upon expiration or termination of any of our agreements with third-party vendors, we may not be able to replace the services provided to us in a timely manner or on terms and conditions, including service levels and cost, that are favorable to us and a transition from one vendor to another vendor could subject us to operational delays and inefficiencies until the transition is complete.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovation. It also requires, among other things, the ability to effectively discover, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for novel products, as well as the ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products, including communicating the effectiveness, safety and value of products to actual and prospective customers and medical professionals. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of products competitive with those that we are developing. Our primary competitors for ABP-450 in the injectable botulinum toxin pharmaceutical market for therapeutic use are: - Botox, which is marketed by Allergan, and since its original approval by the FDA in 1989 has been approved for multiple therapeutic indications, including migraine, cervical dystonia, upper and lower limb spasticity, strabismus, blepharospasm, overactive bladder, axillary hyperhidrosis, neurogenic detrusor overactivity and overactive bladder, and which is currently studying its botulinum toxin for therapeutic indications of atrial fibrillation;- Dysport, which is marketed by Ipsen Ltd. As an injectable botulinum toxin for the therapeutic indications of cervical dystonia and upper and lower limb spasticity, and which is currently studying its botulinum toxin for therapeutic indications of neurogenic detrusor overactivity;- Xeomin, which is marketed by Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC as an injectable botulinum toxin for the therapeutic indications of cervical dystonia, blepharospasm, chronic sialorrhea and upper limb spasticity; and - Revance Therapeutics, Inc., or Revance, which is currently studying, preparing BLA submissions for and/or has received approval for, its injectable botulinum toxin, daxibotulinumtoxinA, for the therapeutic indications of cervical dystonia and adult upper limb spasticity, and which has also entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Viatris Inc. to develop and commercialize a biosimilar to Botox. We are also aware of competing botulinum toxins currently being developed or commercialized in the United States, European Union, Asia, South America and other markets. While some of these products may not meet United States regulatory standards, the companies operating in these markets may be able to produce products at a lower cost than United States and European manufacturers. In addition to the injectable botulinum toxin dose forms, we are aware that other companies are developing topical botulinum toxins for therapeutic indications. We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from other pharmaceutical products. For the treatment of cervical dystonia, in addition to other injectable botulinum toxins, we will face competition from orally administered anticholinergic, GABA receptor agonist, benzodiazepine, dopaminergic and anticonvulsant pharmaceuticals. For the treatment of migraine, we will face competition from calcitonin gene-related peptide agonists, or CGRPs, including Aimovig (erenumab) marketed by Amgen Inc., Ajovy (fremenezumab) marketed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Emgality (galcenezumab) marketed by Eli Lilly and Company, as well as certain orally administered anti-epileptic, beta-blocker and triptan pharmaceuticals. The FDA has also accepted a New Drug Application for vazegepant, marketed by Pfizer Inc., to be used as an intranasal formulation for both the acute treatment and prevention of migraine. For the treatment of gastroparesis, we will face competition from prokinetic agents, including REGLAN (metoclopramide), which is the only medication currently approved by FDA for the treatment of gastroparesis. Many of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than we have. This enables them, among other things, to leverage their financial resources to make greater R&D, marketing and promotion investments than us. Our competitors may also have more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Our technologies and products may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors. For example, Revance has published data related to the treatment of cervical dystonia that indicates that its botulinum toxin may have a duration of effect of at least 24 weeks, which may compare favorably to the duration of effect of ABP-450. As more companies develop new intellectual property in our markets, the possibility of a competitor acquiring patent or other rights that may limit our products or potential products increases, which could lead to litigation. In addition to product development, testing, approval and promotion, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include industry consolidation, product quality and price, product technology, reputation, customer service and access to technical information.

We are subject to applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the FCA, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we sell, market and distribute our products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry (e.g., healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors), are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. We also may be subject to patient information and privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to: The Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits the knowing and willful offer, receipt, or payment of remuneration in exchange for or to induce the referral of patients or the use of products or services that would be paid for in whole or part by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including but not limited to cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced price items and services. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Further, courts have found that if "one purpose" of remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is violated. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, but the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. 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 FCA. Many states have similar laws that apply to their state health care programs as well as private payors. Violations of anti-kickback and other applicable laws can result in exclusion from federal health care programs and substantial civil and criminal penalties. The federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the FCA, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The FCA has been used to prosecute persons submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. The FCA includes a whistleblower provision that allows individuals to bring actions on behalf of the federal government and share a portion of the recovery of successful claims. Some state law equivalents of the above federal laws, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA, apply to items or services regardless of whether the good or service was reimbursed by a government program, so called all-payor laws. These all-payor laws could apply to our sales and marketing activities even if the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA laws are inapplicable. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity can be found guilty of violating HIPAA without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, and as amended again by the Final HIPAA Omnibus Rule, published in January 2013, which imposes certain obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by covered entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information also implicate our business. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition to other federal laws, state laws and foreign laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union, or the GDPR, create the potential for substantial penalties in the event of any non-compliance with the applicable data privacy and data protection laws. The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, and its implementing regulations, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. For the data submitted on or after January 1,2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non- physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulatory guidance. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies, healthcare providers and other third parties, including charitable foundations, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Responding to investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management's attention from the business. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business. If our marketing or other arrangements were determined to violate anti-kickback or related laws, including the FCA or an all-payor law, then we could be subject to penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert management's attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect our business in an adverse way. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. State and federal authorities have aggressively targeted pharmaceutical companies for alleged violations of these anti-fraud statutes, based on improper research or consulting contracts with doctors, certain marketing arrangements with pharmacies and other healthcare providers that rely on volume-based pricing, off-label marketing schemes, and other improper promotional practices. Companies targeted in such prosecutions have paid substantial fines, have been ordered to implement extensive corrective action plans, and have in many cases become subject to consent decrees severely restricting the manner in which they conduct their business, among other consequences. Additionally, federal and state regulators have brought criminal actions against individual employees responsible for alleged violations. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our contractual relationships with providers or institutions or our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would materially harm our business. Also, the FCPA and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to non-United States officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Our internal control policies and procedures may not protect us from reckless or negligent acts committed by our employees, future distributors, partners, collaborators or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could result in fines, penalties or prosecution and have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation.