Axsome Therapeutics (AXSM) Risk Factors

We may not be able to initiate or continue conducting clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors' product candidates. Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including: - the size and nature of the patient population;- the severity of the disease under investigation;- the eligibility criteria for, and design of, the clinical trial in question, including factors such as frequency of required assessments, length of the study, and ongoing monitoring requirements;- the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study, including the potential advantages or disadvantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies;- competition in recruiting and enrolling patients in clinical trials;- the efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;- the patient referral practices of physicians;- effectiveness of publicity created by clinical trial sites regarding the trial;- patients' ability to comply with the specific instructions related to the trial protocol, proper documentation, and use of the drug product;- inability to obtain or maintain patient informed consents;- risk that enrolled patients will drop out before completion;- the ability to identify patients for enrollment and maintain a sufficient level of patient participants in our clinical studies;- the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment; and - the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays which would cause us to miss our projected timelines and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. For instance, because we are seeking regulatory approval for certain indications that may have a narrow or small patient population, it may be difficult to find patients eligible to participate in our clinical studies at a sufficient rate or in a sufficient quantity. We may be required by the FDA to modify the entry criteria for our planned Phase 3 clinical trials and these changes may make it more difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials. Moreover, patients in our clinical trials, especially patients in our control groups, may be at risk for dropping out of our studies if they are not experiencing relief of their symptoms. A significant number of withdrawn patients would compromise the quality of our data. Enrollment delays or slower periods of enrollment in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, or the inability to complete development of our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline, limit our ability to obtain additional financing, and materially impair our ability to generate revenues.

We have received a Fast Track product designation for AXS-05 for both the treatment of TRD as well as for the treatment of AD agitation, and we may seek Fast Track designation for other of our current or future product candidates. The FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA, and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product's application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information, and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. We also received Breakthrough Therapy designation for AXS-05 for both the treatment of MDD and the treatment of AD agitation, and we may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for other current or future product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Breakthrough Therapy designation also allows the sponsor to request a Priority Review or file sections of the NDA on an ongoing basis for rolling review where the FDA may consider beginning review portions of a marketing application before the full submission is complete. Product candidates designated as Breakthrough Therapies by the FDA are also eligible for Priority Review if supported by clinical data at the time of the submission of the NDA. Breakthrough Therapy or Fast Track designation is within the discretion of the FDA. The receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy or Fast Track designation for a product candidate may not ultimately result in a faster development process or review, and it does not in any way assure approval of product candidates by the FDA. In addition, the FDA may later decide to rescind the Breakthrough Therapy or Fast Track designation for one or more of our applicable product candidates if such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification of this program. For example, we were initially granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for AXS-12 for the treatment of cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy in August 2020. In July 2021, the FDA rescinded our Breakthrough Therapy designation due to the FDA approving an additional drug product for the treatment of cataplexy in narcolepsy.

A component of our business strategy is to continue to develop a pipeline of product candidates by developing products that we believe are a strategic fit with our focus on central nervous system, or CNS, therapeutics. However, these business activities may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including: - difficulty or inability to secure financing to fund business activities for such development;- disruption of our business and diversion of our management's time and attention;- higher than expected development costs;- exposure to unknown liabilities;- difficulty in managing multiple product development programs; and - inability to successfully develop new products or clinical failure. For instance, our prior efforts have resulted in our decision not to further develop certain product candidates that, at one time, appeared to be promising. Likewise, we received a CRL from the FDA relating to the Company's AXS-07 portfolio product in 2022 (we have since resubmitted the NDA for AXS-07). We have limited resources to identify and execute the development of products. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential development that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we may not be able to obtain revenues from such product candidates in future periods.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both its regulatory approval and commercialization. As such, we are currently primarily focused on the development of solriamfetol for additional indications, AXS-05 for the treatment of agitation associated with AD, and smoking cessation, AXS-07 for the acute treatment of migraines, AXS-12 for the treatment of narcolepsy and AXS-14 for the treatment of fibromyalgia. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential. Additionally, as more fully described in "Business-Material License Agreements," we are required to pay to an entity owned by our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board certain royalty payments related to the sales of the Company's Auvelity product / AXS-05 portfolio product, as well as two product candidates that are not currently in active development. This may influence management's decision concerning which product candidates or indications to pursue and/or the manner in which our products are commercialized. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing, or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the holder of patents listed in the Orange Book for NDAs that a 505(b)(2) application references may file a patent infringement lawsuit after receiving notice of the paragraph IV certification. Filing of a patent infringement lawsuit against the filer of the 505(b)(2) applicant within 45 days of the patent or NDA owner's receipt of notice triggers a one time, automatic, 30 months stay of the FDA's ability to make the 505(b)(2) NDA approval effective. In such a case, the FDA may not make the 505(b)(2) NDA approval effective 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 settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. Accordingly, we may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of one or more product candidates only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before such product candidates may be commercialized, if at all. In addition, a 505(b)(2) application approval will not be made effective until any existing non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, or exclusivities for changes to NCEs listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product have expired or, if possible, are carved out from the label. In practice, companies that produce branded reference listed drugs often bring patent litigation against applicants that seek regulatory approval to market generic or reformulated versions of their products. Litigation to enforce or defend intellectual property rights is often complex and often involves significant expense and can delay or prevent introduction or sale of our product candidates. If a court finds patents valid and infringed by our product candidates, we may be required to cease selling, relinquish or destroy existing stock, or pay monetary damages unless we can obtain a license from the patent holder. There may also be situations where we use our business judgment and decide to market and sell our approved products, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement have not been finally resolved by the courts, an approach known as an "at risk launch." The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner which may be greater than the profits earned by the infringer. In the case of willful infringement, such damages may be increased up to three times. An adverse decision in patent litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patent applications and patents on products in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our or our licensors' intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

We rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary technological advances and know-how, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, and other advisors, including the third parties we rely on to manufacture our products, to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. However, any party with whom we have executed such an agreement may breach that agreement and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. Accordingly, these agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Further, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, a proposal to increase disclosure and make data more accessible to the public, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA's disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could enable competitors to use our proprietary information to develop products that compete with our products or cause additional, material adverse effects upon our competitive business position and financial results.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We are a party to certain license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual property, including patent rights that are important to our business. We expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from additional third parties. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. We rely on these licenses to use intellectual property that may be material to our business and important or necessary to the development or commercialization of our products. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose on us, various exclusivity obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, the applicable licensor may have the right to terminate our license, in which case we may not be able to develop or commercialize the products covered by such license. In January 2020, we entered into an agreement with Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, for an exclusive U.S. license to Pfizer's clinical and nonclinical data, and intellectual property for reboxetine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in AXS-12 which Axsome is developing for the treatment of narcolepsy. The agreement also provides Axsome exclusive rights to develop and commercialize esreboxetine, a new late-stage product candidate now referred to as AXS-14, in the U.S. for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Under the terms of the agreement, we received from Pfizer an exclusive U.S. license to Pfizer data for reboxetine and esreboxetine encompassing a full range of nonclinical studies, and short-term and long-term clinical trials involving more than five thousand patients. The licensed data includes results of a positive Phase 3 trial and a positive Phase 2 trial of esreboxetine in the treatment of fibromyalgia. We will have the exclusive right and sole responsibility of developing AXS-14 (esreboxetine) in the U.S. for the treatment of fibromyalgia and for other indications. Pfizer received 82,019 shares of our common stock having a value of $8.0 million, based on the average closing price of our common stock for the 10 prior trading days of $97.538, in consideration for the license and rights. Pfizer also received an upfront cash payment of $3.0 million and will receive up to $323 million in regulatory and sales milestones and tiered mid-single to low double-digit royalties on future sales. Pfizer will also have a right of first negotiation on any potential future strategic transactions involving AXS-12 and AXS-14. Under the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture and commercialize the compounds and products in the United States and to seek and maintain regulatory approvals for the compounds and products. The agreement will expire on a product-by-product basis upon expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for such product. On expiration (but not earlier termination), we will have a perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, royalty-free and irrevocable license under the licensed patent rights and related data to develop, manufacture, use, commercialize and otherwise exploit the compounds. Either party may terminate the agreement for the other party's material breach following a cure period. Pfizer may immediately terminate the agreement upon certain insolvency events relating to us. We may terminate the agreement for any reason upon ninety days written notice to Pfizer at any time after the first anniversary of the agreement. If the license agreement with Pfizer is terminated for any reason, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects will be materially harmed. In 2012, we entered into three exclusive license agreements with Antecip Bioventures II LLC, or Antecip, an entity owned by our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Herriot Tabuteau, M.D., in which we were granted exclusive licenses to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Antecip's patents and applications related to the development of AXS-05, as well as two product candidates that are not currently in development, anywhere in the world for human therapeutic, veterinary, and diagnostic use. The agreements were amended in August 2015 to update the schedule of patents and applications subject to the license agreements. Pursuant to the agreements, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize AXS-05. Under the terms of the agreements, we are required to pay to Antecip a royalty equal to 3.0% for AXS-05, of net sales of products containing the licensed technology by us, our affiliates, or permitted sublicensees. These royalty payments are subject to reduction by an amount up to 50.0% of any required payments to third parties. Unless earlier terminated by a party for cause or by us for convenience, the agreements remain in effect on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later to occur of (1) the applicable product is no longer covered by a valid claim in that country or (2) 10 years from the first commercial sale of the applicable product in that country. Upon expiration of the agreements with respect to a product in a country, our license grant for that product in that country will become a fully paid up, royalty free, perpetual non-exclusive license. If Antecip terminates any of the agreements for cause, or if we exercise our right to terminate any of the agreements for convenience, the rights granted to us under such terminated agreement will revert to Antecip. We are dependent upon the license agreements with Antecip and if any of the license agreements with Antecip are terminated for any reason, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects will be materially harmed. In connection with the acquisition of Sunosi, in addition to the upfront purchase price, we assumed certain liabilities in connection with the acquisition and agreed to make non-refundable, non-creditable royalty payments to Jazz on U.S. net sales. There are no royalty payments due to Jazz for net sales outside of the U.S. In addition, we assumed all of the commitments of Jazz to SK and Aerial. The assumed commitments to SK and Aerial include single-digit tiered royalties and certain sales and development milestones. We are dependent on these agreements, and if we breach these agreements, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects will be materially harmed.

Competitors may infringe our issued patents, our in-licensed patents, or other intellectual property that we own or in-license. Under the terms of our license agreements with Antecip, if we believe a third party is infringing on the patents subject to the licenses, we are obligated, at our own expense, to initiate suit against those third parties. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents and/or to challenge the validity of the asserted patent(s) before a court or the USPTO (e.g., in post-grant proceedings such as Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO). In addition, in a patent infringement or validity proceeding, a decision maker (e.g., a court or the PTAB) may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part; construe the patent's claims narrowly; or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding or related proceeding at the USPTO could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Many of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources than we do. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation longer than we could. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any of our products depends upon our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of third parties, and our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market, and sell our products and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the general field of treatment and management of CNS disorders and cover the use of numerous compounds and formulations in our targeted markets. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. Because of the uncertainty inherent in any patent or other litigation involving proprietary rights, we and our licensors may not be successful in defending intellectual property claims by third parties, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Regardless of the outcome of any litigation, defending against litigation may be expensive, time consuming, and distracting to management. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications, unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents that any of our current or future products may infringe. There could also be existing patents of which we are not aware that any of our current or future products may inadvertently infringe. If a third-party claims that we infringe their intellectual property rights, we could face a number of issues, including: - infringement and other intellectual property claims which, whether meritorious or not, can be expensive and time consuming to litigate and can divert management's attention from our core business;- substantial damages for past infringement which we may have to pay if a court decides that our product infringes on a competitor's patent;- a court prohibiting us from selling or licensing our product unless the patent holder licenses the patent to us, which it would not be required to do;- if a license is available from a patent holder, we may have to pay substantial royalties or grant cross licenses to our patents; and - redesigning our products and processes so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or could require substantial funds and time. If we are found to infringe a third party's intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our products or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent prosecution process. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other governmental fees on patents or patent applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ and rely on reputable law firms and other professionals to effect payment of these fees to the USPTO and non-U.S. patent agencies for the patents and patent applications we own and those that we in-license. We also employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply with the various documentary and other procedural requirements with respect to the patents and patent applications that we own and those that we in-license. In some cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a "first to file" system in which the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including reexamination, post-grant review, inter-partes review, or derivation or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding, or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. Future patent reform legislation in the U.S. and/or in jurisdictions outside the U.S. could potentially further increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability, or the ability of our collaborators, to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval. It is unclear what impact these various efforts have and will have on our business operations and resulting financial condition. We expect that current laws, as well as 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, or our collaborators, may receive for any approved products. It is unclear how regulations and sub-regulatory policy, which fluctuate continually, may affect interpretation and further implementation of the ACA and its practical effects on our business. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation in the United States directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, including drugs and biologics. Any further changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenue or increase our costs could also have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, there is a great degree of uncertainty regarding how recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) and Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), will impact the FDA's enforcement and decision-making authority. Loper Bright explicitly overturned Chevron deference, which previously gave judicial deference to administrative action by agencies in the executive branch. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Corner Post may result in challenges to FDA decisions by new litigants long into the future. While the full effect that the ACA may have on our business continues to evolve, we expect that the ACA, as well as other federal and state healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria, increased regulatory burdens and operating costs, decreased net revenue from our pharmaceutical products, decreased potential returns from our development efforts, and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug. There is also an increasing focus on the price of drugs, both at the state and federal levels, and it is likely that additional pricing controls will be enacted and could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. For instance, states such as California have begun enacting transparency laws aimed at curbing drug price increases. We continue to monitor the potential impact of proposals and recently enacted legislation to lower prescription drug costs at the federal and state level. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, was signed into law by President Biden in August 2022. The IRA makes significant changes to how drugs are covered and paid for under the Medicare program, including the creation of financial penalties for drugs whose prices rise faster than the rate of inflation, redesign of the Medicare Part D program to require manufacturers to bear more of the liability for certain drug benefits, and government price-setting for certain Medicare Part D drugs, starting in 2026, and Medicare Part B drugs starting in 2028. We are evaluating what effect, if any, the IRA may have on our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government healthcare programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs. Legislative and regulatory proposals may also be made to expand post approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for drugs. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance, or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA's approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. In addition, there have been a number of other legislative and regulatory proposals aimed at changing the pharmaceutical industry. For instance, the enacted Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA imposes obligations on manufacturers of prescription drug products for commercial distribution, regulating the distribution of the products at the federal level, and sets certain standards for federal or state registration and compliance of entities in the supply chain (manufacturers and repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers). The DSCSA preempts certain previously enacted state pedigree laws and the pedigree requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA. Trading partners within the drug supply chain must now ensure certain product tracing requirements are met that they are doing business with other authorized trading partners; and they are required to exchange transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements. Product identifier information (an aspect of the product tracing scheme) is also now required. The DSCSA requirements, development of standards, and the system for product tracing have been and will continue to be phased in over a period of years, with the FDA indicating it would permit certain exemptions and exclusions, and enforcement discretion on certain aspects due to the COVID-19 pandemic, although this situation may continue to evolve. The distribution of product samples continues to be regulated under the PDMA, and some states also impose regulations on drug sample distribution. Compliance with the federal track and trace requirements may increase our operational expenses and impose significant administrative burdens. As a result of these and other new proposals, we may determine to change our current manner of operation, provide additional benefits, or change our contract arrangements, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

As a pharmaceutical company, we are subject to many federal and state healthcare laws, including those described in the "Business-Government Regulation and Product Approval" section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 23, 2024, such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal False Claims Act, the civil monetary penalties statute, the Medicaid Drug Rebate statute and other price reporting requirements, the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, the Sunshine Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and similar state and foreign laws. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors, certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients' rights are and will be applicable to our business. We are subject to healthcare fraud and abuse laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. There are numerous other laws and legislative and regulatory initiatives at the federal and state levels addressing privacy and security concerns, and some state privacy and security laws apply more broadly than the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and its implementing regulations. For example, California enacted legislation – the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA – which went into effect in January 2020. The CCPA, among other things, creates data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. The CCPA also creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach. Further, many data privacy and security laws within the U.S. have concurrent jurisdiction, which could subject us to enforcement by multiple agencies under multiple statutes for the same conduct (e.g., FTC enforcement under Section 5, HHS-Office for Civil Rights enforcement under HIPAA, and actions by state Attorneys General for violation of applicable state laws). In addition, EU member states and other foreign jurisdictions, including Switzerland, have adopted data protection laws and regulations which impose significant compliance obligations. Moreover, the collection and use of personal health data in the EU, which was formerly governed by the provisions of the EU Data Protection Directive, was replaced with the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, in May 2018. The GDPR, which is wide-ranging in scope, imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third-party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EU to the U.S., provides an enforcement authority and imposes large penalties for noncompliance, including the potential for fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. The GDPR requirements apply not only to third-party transactions, but also to transfers of information between us and our subsidiaries, including employee information. The recent implementation of the GDPR has increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, including in clinical trials, and we may in the future be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, which could divert management's attention and increase our cost of doing business. Moreover, new regulation or legislative actions regarding data privacy and security (together with applicable industry standards) may increase our costs of doing business. In this regard, we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards relating to privacy and data protection in the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions, and we cannot determine the impact such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any federal or state healthcare, data or information privacy law, or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, debarment from government contracts, refusal of orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health care programs, corporate integrity agreements, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, including our collaborators, is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it may be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including but not limited to, exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business. Although an effective compliance program can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state fraud laws may prove costly. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management's attention from the operation of our business.

In order to market and sell our products in the European Union, or EU, and many other jurisdictions, we or our third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or these third parties may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may compromise our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

The timeline for review and time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities and the availability and prioritization of regulatory agency resources. The timeline for regulatory approval can be affected by a variety of factors, including budget and funding levels, agency staffing, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate's clinical development, vary among jurisdictions, and/or require us to amend our clinical trial protocols or conduct additional studies that require regulatory or institutional review board, or IRB, approval, or otherwise cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. To date, we have submitted two NDAs to the FDA and have obtained regulatory approval for one of our product candidates, Auvelity. It is possible that none of our other existing product candidates, or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future, will ever obtain regulatory approval. Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals or uncertainty in the timing of regulatory action could materially adversely impact our development efforts and affect our ability or that of any of our collaborators to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price. Our products and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States, and by the EMA, in Europe, and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States and Europe. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and rely on third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, and consultants to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate's safety and efficacy for that indication and the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites by, the regulatory authorities. 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 trial process. The results of preclinical studies; our product candidates' mechanism of action; studies conducted by third parties in different patient populations, using different products, or using different study designs; and early clinical trials of our product candidates 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. Preclinical studies may also reveal unfavorable product candidate characteristics, including safety concerns. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered 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. Moreover, should there be a flaw in a clinical trial, it may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials and in the course of our preparation, submission, and review of NDA filings that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including: - regulators or IRBs may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site or amend trial protocols;- we may experience delays in reaching, or fail to reach, agreement on acceptable clinical trial contracts or clinical trial protocols with prospective trial sites and our CROs;- clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, or our studies may fail to reach the necessary level of statistical or clinical significance, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs;- interim analyses may result in our clinical trials being discontinued for safety or futility reasons or may result in modifications to our clinical trials that prolong the trials or make them difficult and more expensive to complete, such as increases in the number of subjects;- the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate, or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;- our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or the clinical trial protocol, or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, or we may be required to engage in additional clinical trial site monitoring;- we, the regulators, or IRBs may require that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks, undesirable side effects, or other unexpected characteristics of the product candidate, or due to findings of undesirable effects caused by a chemically or mechanistically similar drug or drug candidate. We may also discontinue clinical research and programs due to changing business priorities;- changes in marketing approval policies during the development period rendering our data insufficient to obtain marketing approval;- changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations;- changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application;- the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate, or we may have insufficient funds for a clinical trial or to pay the substantial user fees required by the FDA upon the filing of an NDA;- the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;- we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials, analyses, reports, data, or preclinical/nonclinical studies than we currently plan, or we may abandon product development programs. For instance, although we believe that we are able to rely on the Phase 2 CONCERT trial and SYMPHONY trial to support an NDA for AXS-12 for the treatment of cataplexy and narcolepsy and the completed Phase 2 trial and Phase 3 trial to support an NDA for AXS-14 for the management of fibromyalgia, the FDA could still require additional studies to support the approval of an NDA for these product candidates. The outcome of our studies may further necessitate additional clinical or preclinical work;- we may fail to reach an agreement with regulators regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials;- we may have delays in adding new investigators or clinical trial sites, or we may experience a withdrawal of clinical trial sites;- patients that enroll in our studies may misrepresent their eligibility or may otherwise not comply with the clinical trial protocol, resulting in the need to drop the patients from the study or clinical trial, increase the needed enrollment size for the study or clinical trial, or extend the study's or clinical trial's duration;- there may be regulatory questions regarding interpretations of data and results, or new information may emerge regarding our product candidates;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our study design or our interpretation of data from preclinical studies and clinical trials or find that a product candidate's benefits do not outweigh its safety risks. For instance, in our communications with the FDA, the FDA has raised questions and had comments regarding our preclinical studies and clinical trials, such as comments on the acceptability of the proposed trial designs for our product candidates, the number of patients planned for our studies, our data analysis plans, the species and doses used in our preclinical studies, and the results of our preclinical studies;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our belief that certain product attributes are advantageous or may require further study of product attributes that are different than our reference listed drugs. Pharmacokinetic differences between our product candidates and the reference listed drugs, may also make bridging studies more difficult or may prevent us from using the 505(b)(2) pathway. If we are prevented from using the 505(b)(2) pathway, we will need to use the more time consuming and expensive NDA pathway to receive product approval;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from studies with clinical trial sites in foreign countries;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our intended indications;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve or subsequently find fault with the manufacturing processes or our manufacturing facilities for clinical and future commercial supplies;- in connection with the CMC data necessary for our NDA filing and approval, we will need to conduct stability studies and provide stability data to establish appropriate retest or expiration dating periods;- our product candidates may not demonstrate sufficient long-term stability to support an NDA filing or obtain approval, or the product shelf life may be limited by stability results;- there may be delays in the FDA's ability to conduct necessary Pre-Approval Inspections, or PAIs, and more generally the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may take longer than we anticipate to make a decision on our product candidates; and - we may not be able to demonstrate that a product candidate provides an advantage over current standards of care or current or future competitive therapies in development. Moreover, if we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond that which we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive, or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may: - be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates;- not obtain marketing approval at all;- obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired or are not covered by our intellectual property;- obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions, including restrictions on the intended patient population, or safety warnings, including boxed warnings, contraindications, and precautions, or may not include label statements necessary or desirable for successful commercialization;- be subject to additional post-marketing testing and surveillance requirements, including REMS; or - have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval. Our product candidate development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or approvals and we may not have sufficient funding to complete the testing and approval process for any of our product candidates. We may be required to obtain additional funds to complete clinical trials and prepare for possible commercialization of our product candidates. We do not know whether any additional preclinical tests or clinical trials will be required, will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant delays relating to any preclinical studies or clinical trials also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors, or the competitors of our collaborators, to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, such delays may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of any of our product candidates. If any of this occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be materially harmed. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies, clinical trials, or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. During the course of review, the FDA may also request or require additional CMC, or other data and information, and the development and provision of these data and information may be time consuming and expensive. For example, in the CRL with respect to our NDA for AXS-07, the FDA noted the need for additional CMC data. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities have not previously reviewed product candidates for the indications we are pursuing, such as AD agitation or smoking cessation. As a result, we may experience delays in regulatory approval due to uncertainties in the approval process. If we experience delays in obtaining approval, if we fail to obtain approval of a product candidate or if the label for a product candidate does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate, the commercial prospects for such product candidate may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues from that product candidate will be materially impaired. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities have not previously reviewed product candidates for the indications we are pursuing, such as AD agitation or smoking cessation. As a result, we may experience delays in regulatory approval due to uncertainties in the approval process.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us, IRBs, and other reviewing entities or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. For example, if concerns are raised regarding the safety of a new drug as a result of undesirable side effects identified during clinical or preclinical testing, the FDA may order us to cease further development, decline to approve the drug, or issue a letter requesting additional data or information prior to making a final decision regarding whether or not to approve the drug. The number of requests for additional data or information issued by the FDA in recent years has increased and resulted in substantial delays in the approval of several new drugs. Undesirable side effects caused by any of our current or future product candidates could also result in denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities for any or all targeted indications or the inclusion of unfavorable information in our product labeling, such as limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or distributed, a label with significant safety warnings, including boxed warnings, contraindications, and precautions, a label without statements necessary or desirable for successful commercialization, or may result in requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance, or other requirements, including REMS, to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products, and in turn prevent us from commercializing and generating revenues from the sale of any of our current or future product candidates. Based on the side effects disclosed in FDA product labeling for marketed drugs that contain the same active molecules as our product candidate, AXS-07 may result in fatigue, confusion, dry mouth, diarrhea, nausea, insomnia, anemia, increased appetite, anxiety, sweating, dizziness, palpitations, arrythmia, tachycardia, abnormal vision, syncope, seizure, tremor, tinnitus, dizziness, somnolence, paresthesia, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, constipation, weight increase or decrease, gastritis, hematuria, flatulence, esophagitis, gastric ulcers, gastroesophageal reflux, gastrointestinal hemorrhages, colitis, rash, pain or tightness in the chest, neck, throat or jaw, upper respiratory tract infections, influenza-like symptoms, or other adverse events or potential adverse events reported or discussed in the product labels for meloxicam-containing or rizatriptan-containing products including Anjeso, Vivlodex, Mobic, and Maxalt. Based on the side effects disclosed in the EMA required product label for marketed drugs that contain the same active molecule as our product candidate, AXS-12 and AXS-14 may result in decreased appetite, insomnia, agitation, anxiety, dizziness, headache, paresthesia, akathisia, dysgeusia, accommodation disorder, mydriasis, glaucoma, vertigo, tachycardia, palpitations, vasodilation, hypotension, hypertension, dry mouth, vomiting, hyperhidrosis, rash, sensation of incomplete bladder emptying, urinary tract infection, dysuria, urinary retention, erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory pain, ejaculatory delay, chills, or other adverse events or potential adverse events reported or discussed in the product labels for reboxetine containing products including Edronax. Known side effects for Auvelity and Sunosi are described on the approved labels for those products. In relation to further development efforts with respect to these compounds, different patient populations may react to these compounds differently. For example, AD agitation patients in the case of AXS-05 or ADHD patients in the case of solriamfetol may experience different side effects than patients taking these products for their currently approved indications. This is particularly true where different dosing, formulations or methods of administration are implicated. If any of our other product candidates are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or have properties that are unexpected, we may need to abandon development or limit development of that product candidate to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe, or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. 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 significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any name we intend to use for our product candidates will require approval from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a product name if it believes the name inappropriately implies medical claims or contributes to an overstatement of efficacy. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product names, we may be required to adopt alternative names for our product candidates. If we adopt alternative names, we would lose the benefit of any existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. We may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Our product(s) are subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, including requirements related to the manufacturing processes, post approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, export, import, advertising, marketing, and promotional activities for such product. These requirements further include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information, including manufacturing deviations and reports; registration and listing requirements; the payment of annual program fees for our products; continued compliance with cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance, and corresponding maintenance of records and documents; requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping; and GCP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post approval. We and any of our collaborators, including our contract manufacturers, could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMP and GCP. Application holders must further notify the FDA, and depending on the nature of the change, obtain FDA pre-approval for product and manufacturing changes. Application fees may apply to certain changes. In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or that the drug is less effective than previously thought or other problems with our products, manufacturers, or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements both before and after approval, may yield various results, including: - restrictions on manufacturing or distribution, or marketing of such products;- restrictions on the labeling, including required additional warnings, such as black box warnings, contraindications, precautions, and restrictions on the approved indication or use;- modifications to promotional pieces;- requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials; clinical holds or termination of clinical trials;- requirements to establish or modify a REMS or a comparable foreign authority may require that we establish or modify a similar strategy, that may, for instance, require us to create or modify a medication guide outlining the risks of the previously unidentified side effects for distribution to patients, or restrict distribution of the product, if and when approved, and impose burdensome implementation requirements on us;- changes to the way the drug is administered;- liability for harm caused to patients or subjects;- reputational harm;- the drug becoming less competitive;- warning or untitled letters;- suspension of marketing or withdrawal of the products from the market;- regulatory authority issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases, or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the drug;- refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;- recall of products;- fines, damages, restitution, or disgorgement of profits or revenues;- suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;- refusal to permit the import or export of our products;- product seizure or detention;- FDA debarment, debarment from government contracts, and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, consent decrees, or corporate integrity agreements; or - injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties, including imprisonment. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular products, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing such product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its sale. Any of these events could further have other material and adverse effects on our operations and business and could adversely impact our stock price and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. The FDA's policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit, or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or that could impose additional regulatory obligations on our products. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and be subject to regulatory enforcement action. Should any of the above actions take place, they could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

We, and any of our collaborators, must comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our products for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and continuing review by the FDA, Department of Justice, HHS's Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and the public. When the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities issue regulatory approval for a product candidate, the regulatory approval is limited to those specific uses and indications for which a product is approved. If we are not able to obtain FDA approval for any desired uses or indications for our products and product candidates, we may not market or promote our products for those indications and uses, referred to as off-label uses, and our business may be adversely affected. We further must be able to sufficiently substantiate any claims that we make for our products including claims comparing our products to other companies' products. While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product's labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities, we are prohibited from marketing and promoting the products for indications and uses that are not specifically approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. These off-label uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. Regulatory authorities in the United States and in many other major markets do not generally restrict or regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies concerning off-label use. If we are found to have impermissibly promoted any of our products, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations regarding product promotion, particularly those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted a product may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees of permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. Thus, we and any of our collaborators will not be able to promote any products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved. In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products, following approval, for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims and other litigation under federal and state statutes, including fraud and abuse and consumer protection laws, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines, agreements with governmental authorities that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute drug products and do business through, for example, corporate integrity agreements, suspension or exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, and debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts. Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA's enforcement activity regarding off-label promotion in light of First Amendment considerations; however, there are still significant risks in this area in part due to the potential False Claims Act exposure. The False Claims Act allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing others to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government decides to intervene and prevails in the qui tam lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. Under the False Claims Act, a penalty may be imposed for each false claim, for example, a claim for payment for each prescription for the product, and, when aggregated, these penalties often total millions of dollars and incentivize qui tam lawsuits. These False Claims Act lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, up to $3.0 billion, pertaining to certain sales practices and promoting off-label drug uses. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a pharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action; pay settlement fines or restitution, as well as criminal and civil penalties; agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations; and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal and state healthcare programs. If we or our collaborators do not lawfully promote our approved products, if any, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In the United States, the distribution of product samples to physicians must further comply with the requirements of the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act. If the FDA determines that our promotional materials or activities violate its regulations and policies pertaining to product promotion, it could request that we modify our promotional materials or activities or subject us to regulatory or other enforcement actions, including issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, suspension or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, requests for recalls, payment of civil fines, disgorgement of money, imposition of operating restrictions, injunctions, or criminal prosecution. These regulatory and enforcement actions could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

AXS-12 received Orphan Drug Designation from FDA for the treatment of narcolepsy. We may also seek Orphan Drug Designation for our other products, as appropriate. Orphan Drug Designation, however, may be lost if the indications for which we develop any of our future product candidates do not meet the orphan drug criteria. Moreover, following product approval, orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA determines, among other reasons, that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for any of our current or future product candidates, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a product containing the same principal molecular features for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer or more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. The FDA or the EMA may grant orphan exclusivity to two different sponsors for the same compound or active molecule and for the same indication. For example, if another sponsor receives FDA approval for a reboxetine containing product for the treatment of narcolepsy before we obtain FDA approval for AXS-12 for the treatment of narcolepsy, we would be prevented from launching our product in the United States for this indication for a period of at least 7 years. If another sponsor receives EMA approval for a reboxetine containing product for the treatment of narcolepsy before we obtain EMA approval for AXS-12 for the treatment of narcolepsy, we would be prevented from launching our product in the EU for this indication for a period of at least 10 to 12 years. The FDA may undertake a reevaluation of aspects of its orphan drug regulations and policies at any time and may possibly do so in response to a recent court decision regarding the plain meaning of the exclusivity provision of the Orphan Drug Act. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be harmed.

Once an NDA is approved, the covered product becomes a "reference listed drug" in the FDA's Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference listed drugs through submission of ANDAs in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct full clinical studies. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration, and conditions of use or labeling, among other commonalities, as the reference listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. For example, in February 2023, we received a paragraph IV certification notice letter from Teva providing notification to the Company that Teva has submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version of Auvelity. Additionally, beginning in August 2023, we received paragraph IV certification notice letters from six other pharmaceutical companies providing notification to the Company that each such filer has submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version of Sunosi. Recently, the FDA and Congress have also taken steps to encourage increased generic drug competition in the market. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices and are generally preferred by third-party payors. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug is typically lost to the generic product. Moreover, in addition to generic competition, we could face competition from other companies seeking approval of drug products that are similar to ours using the 505(b)(2) pathway. Such applicants may be able to rely on our products, or other approved drug products or published literature to develop drug products that are similar to ours. The introduction of a drug product similar to our product candidates could expose us to increased competition. Further, if we do not file a patent infringement lawsuit against a generic manufacturer within 45 days of receiving notice of its paragraph IV certification, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant may not be subject to a 30-month stay. Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often very complex in nature, may be expensive and time consuming, may divert our management's attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could adversely impact our ability to prevent third parties from competing with our products. Accordingly, we may be subject to generic competition or competition from similar products, or may need to commence patent infringement proceedings, which would divert our resources. Competition that our products may face from generic or similar versions of our products could materially and adversely impact our future revenue, profitability, and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in our product candidates.

We are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote, or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Comparable foreign regulatory authorities, such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, impose similar restrictions. In the United States, we currently plan to, at least initially, seek approval of some of our product candidates using the 505(b)(2) pathway. These 505(b)(2) product candidates include AXS-05 and AXS-07. The FDA interprets Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, for purposes of approving an NDA, to permit the applicant to rely, in part, upon published literature or the FDA's previous findings of safety and efficacy for an approved product. The FDA, though, requires companies to perform additional clinical trials or preclinical studies to support any deviation from the previously approved product and to support reliance on the FDA's prior findings of safety and efficacy or published literature. Under the 505(b)(2) pathway, the FDA may approve our product candidates for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought pursuant to the Section 505(b)(2) process. The label, however, may require all or some of the limitations, contraindications, warnings, or precautions included in the reference product's label, including a box warning (commonly referred to as a "black box warning"), or may require additional limitations, contraindications, warnings, or precautions, including class-wide warnings. For instance, antidepressants, including Auvelity, include a class-wide black box warning regarding the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior. In addition, because we plan to file certain product candidates under an NDA submitted pursuant to 505(b)(2), we will rely, at least in part, upon a reference drug and published literature. For example, we have and/or intend to rely on third-party studies in the published literature as well as FDA findings of safety and efficacy for approved drug products containing the same active molecules in AXS-05 and AXS-07. If the FDA disagrees with our conclusions regarding the appropriateness of our reliance on a reference drug or published literature, we could be required to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies to support our NDA, which could lead to unanticipated costs and delays or to the termination of our development program. If we are unable to obtain approval for our pharmaceutical formulations through the 505(b)(2) NDA process, we may be required to pursue the more expensive and time consuming 505(b)(1) approval process, which consists of full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness conducted by or for the applicant. In addition, because we have submitted NDAs for AXS-05 and AXS-07 pursuant to the 505(b)(2) process, we have not conducted certain additional clinical trials for these product candidates and, as such, we will have less experience with actual testing of these product candidates. There may also be circumstances under which the FDA would not allow us to pursue a 505(b)(2) application. For instance, should the FDA approve a pharmaceutically equivalent product to our product candidates before we obtain approval, we would no longer be able to use the 505(b)(2) pathway. In that case, it is the FDA's policy that the appropriate submission would be an ANDA, for a generic version of the approved product. We may, however, not be able to immediately submit an ANDA or have an ANDA approval made effective, as we could be blocked by others' periods of patent and regulatory exclusivity protection. Notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under 505(b)(2) over the last few years, pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA's interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA's interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its policies and practices with respect to Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approvals, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit pursuant to the 505(b)(2) process. Moreover, our inability to pursue a 505(b)(2) application could result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which could hurt our competitive position and our business prospects.

We have retained third-party service providers to perform a variety of functions related to the sale and distribution of our products, key aspects of which are out of our direct control. These service providers provide key services related to warehousing and inventory control, distribution, government price reporting, and customer service, and, as a result, much of our inventory is stored at a single warehouse maintained by one such service provider. We substantially rely on this service provider as well as other third-party providers that perform services for us, including entrusting our inventories of products to their care and handling. If these third-party service providers fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or otherwise do not carry out their contractual duties to us, or encounter physical or natural damage at their facilities, our ability to deliver product to meet commercial demand would be significantly impaired and we may be subject to regulatory enforcement action. In addition, we may engage third parties to perform various other services for us relating to adverse event reporting, safety database management, fulfillment of requests for medical information regarding our products and related services. If the quality or accuracy of the data maintained by these service providers is insufficient, or these third parties otherwise fail to comply with regulatory requirements related to adverse event reporting, we could be subject to regulatory sanctions. Additionally, if a third party errs in calculating government pricing information from transactional data in our financial records, it could impact our discount and rebate liability and potentially cause government programs to overpay providers for our products, which could expose us to significant False Claims Act liability and other civil monetary penalties.

We do not manufacture any of our products, and we do not currently plan to develop any capacity to do so. We currently outsource all manufacturing of our products to third parties typically without any guarantee that there will be sufficient supplies to fulfill our requirements or that we may obtain such supplies on acceptable terms. Any delays in obtaining adequate supplies with respect to our products may delay or disrupt the development or commercialization of our products. Moreover, we do not yet in all cases have agreements established regarding commercial supply of our product candidates, and we may not be able to establish or maintain commercial manufacturing arrangements on commercially reasonable terms for any of our current or future product candidates for which we obtain approval in the future. We may not succeed in our efforts to establish manufacturing relationships or other alternative arrangements for any of our existing or future products and programs. Our products may compete with other products and product candidates for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that are both capable of manufacturing for us and willing to do so. If our existing third-party manufacturers, or the third parties that we engage in the future to manufacture a product for commercial sale or for our clinical trials, should cease to continue to do so for any reason, we likely would experience delays in obtaining sufficient quantities of our product for us to meet commercial demand or to advance our clinical trials while we identify and qualify replacement suppliers. If for any reason we are unable to obtain adequate supplies of our products or the drug substances used to manufacture them, it will be more difficult for us to develop our products and compete effectively. Further, even if we do establish such collaborations or arrangements, our third-party manufacturers may breach, terminate, or not renew these agreements. Any problems or delays we experience in preparing for commercial-scale manufacturing of a product candidate may result in a delay in FDA approval of the product candidate or may impair our ability to manufacture commercial quantities or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could result in the delay, prevention, or impairment of clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates and could adversely affect our business. For example, our manufacturers will need to produce specific batches of our product candidates to demonstrate acceptable stability under various conditions and for commercially viable lengths of time. We and our contract manufacturers will need to demonstrate to the FDA and other regulatory authorities that this is acceptable stability data for our product candidates, as well as validate methods and manufacturing processes, in order to receive regulatory approval to commercialize any of our current or future product candidates. Furthermore, if our commercial manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of bulk drug substance or finished product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and we would lose potential revenues. We have a limited number of contract manufacturers for our products. At times we may have only one manufacturer for a product. In addition, we do not have any long-term commitments from our suppliers of clinical trial material or guaranteed prices for our product candidates. The manufacture of pharmaceutical products requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up initial production. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields; quality control, including stability of the product candidate and quality assurance testing; shortages of qualified personnel; and compliance with strictly enforced federal, state, and foreign regulations. Our manufacturers may not perform as agreed. If our manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide product candidates to patients in our clinical trials and for commercial use, if approved, would be jeopardized. In addition, all manufacturers of our products must comply with cGMP requirements enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities that are applicable to both finished drug products and active pharmaceutical ingredients used both for clinical and commercial supply, through its facilities inspection program. The FDA must verify our contract manufacturers' compliance with cGMP requirements and comparable foreign regulatory authorities will similarly inspect our contract manufacturers' facilities after we submit our marketing applications to the agency and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The cGMP requirements include quality control, quality assurance, and the maintenance of records and documentation. Manufacturers of our products may be unable to comply with our specifications, these cGMP requirements and with other FDA, state, and foreign regulatory requirements. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. While we are ultimately responsible for the manufacture of our products, other than through our contractual arrangements, we have little control over our manufacturers' compliance with these regulations and standards. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our products or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop or market our products, or obtain regulatory approval for, our product candidates. A failure to comply with these requirements may result in regulatory enforcement actions against our manufacturers or us, including fines and civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment; suspension or restrictions of production; suspension, delay, or denial of product approval or supplements to approved products; clinical holds or termination of clinical studies; warning or untitled letters; regulatory authority communications warning the public about safety issues with the drug; refusal to permit the import or export of the products; product seizure, detention, or recall; suits under the civil False Claims Act; corporate integrity agreements; consent decrees; or withdrawal of product approval. If the safety of any quantities supplied is compromised due to our manufacturers' failure to adhere to applicable laws or for other reasons, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or successfully commercialize our products. Any failure or refusal to supply our products or components for our current or future product candidates that we may develop could delay, prevent, or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts. Any change in our manufacturers could be costly because the commercial terms of any new arrangement could be less favorable and because the expenses relating to the transfer of necessary technology and processes could be significant.