Bellerophon (BLPH) Risk Analysis

The risk of failure of all of our product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The clinical development of our product candidates is susceptible to the risk of failure inherent at any stage of development, including failure to demonstrate efficacy in a clinical trial or across a broad population of patients, the occurrence of severe or medically or commercially unacceptable adverse events, failure to comply with protocols or applicable regulatory requirements and determination by the FDA or any comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority that a drug product is not approvable. It is possible that even if one or more of our product candidates has a beneficial effect, that effect will not be detected during clinical evaluation as a result of one or more of a variety of factors, including the size, duration, design, measurements, conduct or analysis of our clinical trials. Conversely, as a result of the same factors, our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any. Similarly, in our clinical trials we may fail to detect toxicity of or intolerability caused by our product candidates, or mistakenly believe that our product candidates are toxic or not well tolerated when that is not in fact the case. Also, the exclusion criteria we define may not sufficiently rule out patients who are at a higher risk of being harmed by the treatment. For example, our exclusion criteria for pre-existing left heart dysfunction in our Phase 2 INOpulse clinical trials completed in 2014 may not rule out patients who may experience an adverse event related to left ventricular function due to exposure to nitric oxide. In addition, patients who are not excluded for reactive pulmonary vasculature when exposed to nitric oxide may still experience PH. The outcome of pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results, particularly when earlier trials are small, open-label or non-placebo-controlled trials and in trials that have different endpoints than earlier trials. For example, for PAH, , a pre-specified interim analysis was conducted by the DMC, in August 2018, after half of the planned subjects completed 16 weeks of blinded treatment. The DMC determined that the overall change in 6MWD, the primary endpoint of the trial, was insufficient to support the continuation of the study and based on the DMC's recommendation, we discontinued the trial in August 2018. Many companies in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we cannot be certain that we will not face such setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced or completed. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval. In addition, pre-clinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates. Even if we believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Any Phase 3 or other clinical trials that we may conduct may not demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

We have exclusively licensed INOpulse, for certain indications and settings, and subject to certain retained rights of the licensor, from Ikaria. We may also enter into additional license agreements as part of the development of our business in the future. Such licensors, if any, may be responsible for prosecution of certain patent applications and maintenance of certain patents. Such licensors may not successfully prosecute such patent applications or maintain such patents, which we have licensed and on which our business depends. Our licensors may fail to pursue litigation against third-party infringers, may fail to prove infringement, or may fail to defend against counterclaims of patent invalidity or unenforceability. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended market exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position and our business prospects.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. In the United States and in some other 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 or any potential future product candidates of ours, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, or affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. 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. Congress also must reauthorize the FDA's user fee programs every five years and often makes changes to those programs in addition to policy or procedural changes that may be negotiated between the FDA and industry stakeholders as part of this periodic reauthorization process. On September 30, 2022, President Biden signed into law the FDA User Fee Reauthorization Act of 2022, which includes the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug user Fee Act from fiscal year 2023 through 2027. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in health care systems with the stated goals of containing health care costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, Congress passed the ACA, which substantially changed the way health care is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the United States pharmaceutical industry. As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive health care provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of drug products covered under Medicare Part B report the product's average sales price, or ASP, to DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties. There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and as a result certain sections of the ACA have not been fully implemented or effectively repealed. However, following several years of litigation in the federal courts, in June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ACA when it dismissed a legal challenge to the law's constitutionality. Further, legislative and regulatory changes under the ACA remain possible, although the new federal administration under President Biden has signaled that it plans to build on the ACA and expand the number of people who are eligible for health insurance subsidies under it. It is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take, and how or whether it may affect the pharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, such as changes allowing the federal government to directly negotiate drug prices, and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry in the United States. The uncertainty around the future of the ACA, and in particular the impact to reimbursement levels, may lead to uncertainty or delay in the purchasing decisions of our customers, which may in turn negatively impact our product sales. If there are not adequate reimbursement levels, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, the Medicare sequester reductions under the Budget Control Act of 2011 was suspended from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which also extended the sequester by one year, through 2030, in order to offset the added expense of the 2020 cancellation. The suspension was subsequently extended through March 31, 2022, with a reduction of the suspension to 1% sequester through June 30, 2022. Effective July 1, 2022, the reduction of 2% was reimposed. In addition, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act enacted in 2013 imposed obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing, and in February 2022, FDA released proposed regulations to amend the national standards for licensing of wholesale drug distributors by the states; establish new minimum standards for state licensing third-party logistics providers; and create a federal system for licensure for use in the absence of a State program, each of which is mandated by the DSCSA. As another example, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 into law (P.L. 116-94) that includes a piece of bipartisan legislation called the CREATES Act. The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic and biosimilar product developers access to samples of brand products. The CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic or biosimilar product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on "commercially reasonable, market-based terms." Whether and how generic and biosimilar product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown. Other legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We are unsure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the current regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or whether such changes will have any impact on our business. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices considering the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, state legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states' ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. At the federal level, DHHS has solicited feedback on various measures intended to lower drug prices and reduce the out of pocket costs of drugs and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS's policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. In addition, in September 2020, the FDA finalized a rulemaking to establish a system whereby state governmental entities could lawfully import and distribute prescription drugs sourced from Canada. Those new regulations became effective on November 30, 2020, although the impact of such future programs is uncertain in part because lawsuits have been filed challenging the government's authority to promulgate them. The final regulations may also be vulnerable to being overturned by a joint resolution of disapproval from Congress under the procedures set forth in the Congressional Review Act, which could be applied to regulatory actions taken by the Trump administration on or after August 21, 2020 (i.e., in the last 60 days of legislative session of the 116th Congress). Congress and the executive branch have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, in July 2020, President Trump announced four executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempted to implement several of his Administration's proposals, including a policy that would tie Medicare Part B drug prices to international drug prices; one that directed DHHS to finalize the Canadian drug importation proposed rule previously issued by DHHS (which has since been finalized, as noted above) and made other changes allowing for personal importation of drugs from Canada; one that directed DHHS to finalize the rulemaking process on modifying the anti-kickback law safe harbors for plans, pharmacies, and pharmaceutical benefit managers after DHHS confirms that the action is not projected to increase federal spending, Medicare beneficiary premiums, or patients' total out-of-pocket costs (which DHHS finalized in November 2020, also making those rules subject to potentially being overturned under the Congressional Review Act); and one that reduces costs of insulin and epinephrine auto-injectors to patients of federally qualified health centers. President Trump also issued another executive order on September 13, 2020 that directed DHHS to undertake rulemaking in order to test an international reference pricing model for prescription drug products, which was also implemented by DHHS and then challenged in federal court by industry groups in December 2020. The probability of success of these newly announced policies and their impact on the U.S. prescription drug marketplace is unknown. There are likely to be continued political and legal challenges associated with implementing these reforms as they are currently envisioned, and the January 20, 2021 transition to a new Democrat-led presidential administration created further uncertainty. Following his inauguration, President Biden took immediate steps to order a regulatory freeze on all pending substantive executive actions in order to permit incoming department and agency heads to review whether questions of fact, policy, and law may be implicated and to determine how to proceed. The implementation of cost containment measures or other health care reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Current and future health care legislation could have a significant impact on our business. There is uncertainty with respect to the impact these changes, if any, may have, and any changes likely will take time to unfold. In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Any additional federal or state health care reform measures could limit the amounts that third-party payers will pay for health care products and services, and, in turn, could significantly reduce the projected value of certain development projects and reduce our profitability.

We face an inherent risk of product liability claims as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates despite obtaining appropriate informed consents from our clinical trial participants. We will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any product that we may develop. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. For example: - improper use or failure of INOpulse may result in rebound PH, which can be fatal in some patients;- rebound PH may also occur if both the primary and back-up devices fail before we can replace them, if the built-in back-up with a device does not work properly or if the patient does not carry or have access to his or her back-up device; and - rebound PH can also occur in patients who were not previously considered at risk for this reaction and who may not have been provided an adequate back-up device. - Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: - decreased demand for products that we may develop;- injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;- withdrawal of clinical trial participants;- significant costs to defend resulting litigation;- substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;- loss of revenue;- reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy; and - the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop. Although we maintain general liability insurance of $2.0 million in the aggregate, umbrella insurance in the amount of $10.0 million in the aggregate and clinical trial liability insurance of $20.0 million in the aggregate, this insurance may not fully cover potential liabilities that we may incur. The cost of any product liability litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. We will need to increase our insurance coverage if and when we begin the commercial sale of any product candidate that receives marketing approval. In addition, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, it could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The battery pack used in our INOpulse devices makes use of lithium-ion cells. On rare occasions, lithium-ion cells can rapidly release the energy they contain by venting smoke and flames in a manner that can ignite nearby materials. Highly publicized incidents of laptop computers and cell phones bursting into flames have focused consumer attention on the safety of these cells. There can be no assurance that the battery packs we use would not fail, which could lead to property damage, personal injury or death, and may subject us to lawsuits. We may also have to recall our products, if any, which would be time consuming and expensive. Also, negative perceptions in the healthcare and patient communities regarding the suitability of lithium-ion cells for medical applications or any future incident involving lithium-ion cells could seriously harm our business, even in the absence of an incident involving us.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately, to disclose unauthorized activities to us or to comply with our code of business conduct and ethics. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, false claims, inappropriate promotion, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. The precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions. In addition, during the course of our operations, our directors, executives and employees may have access to material, non-public information regarding our business, our results of operations or potential transactions we are considering. We may not be able to prevent a director, executive or employee from violating our insider trading policies and trading in our common stock on the basis of, or while having access to, material, non-public information. If a director, executive or employee was to be investigated, or an action was to be brought against a director, executive or employee for insider trading, it could have a negative impact on our reputation and our stock price. Such a claim, with or without merit, could also result in substantial expenditures of time and money, and divert attention of our management team from other tasks important to the success of our business.

In connection with our separation from Ikaria, Ikaria has generally agreed to retain all liabilities that did not historically arise from our business. Third parties may seek to hold us responsible for Ikaria's retained liabilities. Under our agreements with Ikaria, Ikaria has agreed to indemnify us for claims and losses relating to these retained liabilities. However, if those liabilities are significant and we are ultimately liable for them, we cannot assure our stockholders that we will be able to recover the full amount of our losses from Ikaria.

We do not have a sales, marketing or distribution infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. We expect to build a commercial infrastructure to allow us to market and sell certain of our product candidates when approved, if any, using a specialty sales force in the United States, and we may choose to establish commercialization capabilities in select countries outside the United States. The development of sales, marketing and distribution capabilities will require substantial resources, will be time-consuming and could delay any product launch. We expect that we will commence the development of these capabilities prior to receiving approval of any of our product candidates. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and distribution capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we could have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization costs. Such a delay may be costly, and our investment could be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In addition, we may not be able to hire or retain a sales force in the United States that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we plan to target. If we are unable to establish or retain a sales force and marketing and distribution capabilities, our operating results may be adversely affected. If a potential partner has development or commercialization expertise or financial resources that we believe is particularly relevant to one of our product candidates, then we may seek to collaborate with that potential partner even if we believe we could otherwise develop and commercialize the product independently. We may partner with third parties to commercialize our product candidates in certain countries outside the United States. As a result of entering into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues may be lower, perhaps substantially lower, than if we were to directly market and sell products in those markets. Furthermore, we may be unsuccessful in entering into the necessary arrangements with third parties or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, we may have little or no control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval.