Catalyst Pharma (CPRX) Risk Analysis

In the U.S., there have been a number of court cases, legislative and regulatory changes, and other potential changes relating to the healthcare system that restrict or regulate post-approval activities, which may affect our ability to profitably sell FIRDAPSE, AGAMREE, or any other drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements, restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products, and with respect to orphan drug designation and exclusivity. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA's approval process may subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. Delays in feedback from the FDA may affect our ability to quickly update or adjust our label in the interest of patient adherence and tolerability. We cannot predict whether other legislative changes will be adopted or how such changes would affect the pharmaceutical industry generally and specifically the commercialization of FIRDAPSE and any other products we develop. While it is difficult to quantify in the absence of specific proposals, we assess the risk of a material financial impact from potential new tariffs to be low due to a significant portion of our supply chain being U.S. based; however, this may not prove to be the case.

There can be no assurance that the designation and/or exclusivity provisions currently in the law may not be changed in the future and the impact of any such changes (if made) on us. For example, the U.S. Congress could pass, and the President could sign, legislation to effectively overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturning the FDA's approval of RUZURGI, and such legislation, if passed and signed into law, could retroactively affect the outcome of the 11th Circuit's decision. Notwithstanding, since we now hold the U.S. rights to RUZURGI, these legislative efforts will have no effect on our FIRDAPSE business. In that regard, in January 2023, the FDA reported that while it is complying with the 11th Circuit decision in Catalyst's favor with respect to FIRDAPSE, going forward the FDA intends to continue to apply its regulations tying the scope of orphan drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved with respect to other orphan drugs. We will not be affected by the FDA's position, as the FDA's announcement confirms the FDA's previous decision to set aside the approval of RUZURGI as a result of the 11th Circuit's decision. The orphan drug exclusivity contained in the Orphan Drug Act has been the subject of scrutiny from the press, from some members of Congress and from some in the medical community. Furthermore, the FDA's interpretations of the Orphan Drug Act have been successfully challenged in court and future court decisions could continue that trend. There can be no assurance that the exclusivity granted in the Orphan Drug Act to orphan drugs approved by the FDA will not be modified in the future, and as to how any such change might affect our products, if approved.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, third party payors, customers, and patients expose us to broadly applicable anti-bribery, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our drug candidates. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by the U.S. federal government and the states and the foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state anti-bribery and healthcare laws and regulations include the following: - the Federal health care program Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits individuals and entities from, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal and state healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;- the federal criminal and civil false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the federal False Claims Act, which can be imposed through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions against individuals or entities, prohibits, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Moreover, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act;- HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability, prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;- HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which impose obligations on certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the storage, use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and require notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information;- the federal legislation commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the ACA, and its implementing regulations, which requires certain manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, with certain exceptions, to report annually to CMS information related to certain payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, certain types of advanced care practice nurses and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members, with the information made publicly available on a searchable website;- the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, which prohibits, among other things, U.S. companies and their employees and agents from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to foreign government officials, employees of public international organizations and foreign government owned or affiliated entities, candidates for foreign political office, and foreign political parties or officials thereof;- analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers; and - certain state and local laws that, among other things, require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; require drug and therapeutic biologics manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; require manufacturers to report price increases that exceed a statutory threshold, as well as information on the reasons for the price increase; require manufacturers to report the introduction into the market of costly drugs; require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. If we or our collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, which could affect our ability to develop, market and sell our products successfully and could harm our reputation and lead to reduced acceptance of our products by the market. These enforcement actions include, not only civil and criminal penalties, but also exclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs, and exclusion from eligibility for the award of government contracts for our products. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that government authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, or reputational harm, any of which could adversely affect our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management's attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources.

We are and will continue to be subject to continuing regulatory review for our approved products, including the review of our required nonclinical and clinical post-marketing studies, and other clinical results which are reported after our drug candidates become commercially available approved drugs. As greater numbers of patients use a drug following its approval, side effects and other problems may be observed after approval that were not seen or anticipated during preapproval clinical studies and trials. In addition, the manufacturer, and the manufacturing facilities we use to make any approved drugs, will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA. The subsequent discovery of previously unknown problems with the drug, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the drug, manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements, we may be subject to fines, suspension, or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions. Our product promotion and advertising are also subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. In particular, the marketing claims we will be permitted to make in labeling or advertising regarding our marketed products will be limited by the terms and conditions of the FDA-approved labeling and available scientific data. We must submit copies of our advertisements and promotional labeling to the FDA at the time of initial publication or dissemination. If the FDA believes these materials or statements promote our products for unapproved indications, or with unsubstantiated claims, or if we fail to provide appropriate safety related information, the FDA could allege that our promotional activities misbrand our products. Specifically, the FDA could issue an untitled letter or warning letter, which may demand, among other things, that we cease such promotional activities and issue corrective advertisements and labeling to all recipients of the misbranded materials. The FDA also could take enforcement action including seizure of allegedly misbranded product, injunction, or criminal prosecution against us and our officers or employees. If we repeatedly or deliberately fail to submit such advertisements and labeling to the agency, the FDA could withdraw our approvals. Moreover, the Department of Justice can bring civil or criminal actions against companies and executives that promote drugs or biologics for unapproved uses, based on the FDCA, the False Claims Act, and other federal laws governing the marketing and reimbursement for such products under federally supported healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Monetary penalties in such cases have often been substantial, and civil penalties can include costly mandatory compliance programs and potential exclusion of a company's products from federal healthcare programs.

Our investors, regulators, and other stakeholders have in the last few years increasingly focused on ESG matters. Certain investors, particularly institutional investors, may use third party benchmarks or scores to measure our ESG practices, and to decide whether to invest in our shares, engage with us regarding our practices, or engage or continue to use our services. If our ESG scores or practices do not meet desired standards, we may face reputational challenges. There can be no assurance that we will be able to accomplish any particular ESG goal or commitment, including any additional or revised commitment that we may announce in the future, as statements regarding such goals and commitments reflect our plans and aspirations at the time of announcement and do not guarantee achievement of such plans and aspirations within the timelines we announce or at all. Different stakeholder groups have divergent views on ESG matters, which increases the risk that any action or lack thereof with respect to ESG matters will be perceived negatively by at least some stakeholders and adversely impact our reputation and business. Anti-ESG sentiment has gained some momentum across the U.S., with several states having enacted or proposed "anti-ESG" policies or legislation, or issued related legal opinions. If we do not successfully manage ESG-related expectations across these varied stakeholder interests, it could erode stakeholder trust, impact our reputation, and constrain our business. Globally, a lack of harmonization in relation to ESG legal and regulatory reform across the jurisdictions in which we may operate may affect our future implementation of, and compliance with, rapidly developing ESG standards and requirements. Generally, we expect stakeholder demands and the prevailing legal environment to require us to devote additional resources to ESG matters in our review of prospective acquisitions. Additionally, collecting, measuring, and reporting ESG information and metrics can be costly, difficult, and time-consuming, are subject to evolving reporting standards, and can present numerous operational, reputational, financial, legal, and other risks. Compliance with ESG-related rules and efforts to meet investor expectations on ESG matters may place strain on our personnel, systems, and resources, and we may incur significant compliance costs. Additionally, failure to comply with such rules or meet investor expectations may have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations.

Disruptions at the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new products to be reviewed and/or approved, which would adversely affect our business. Changes in FDA staffing could result in delays in the FDA's responsiveness or in its ability to review submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all. Similar consequences would also result in the event of another significant shutdown of the federal government. For example, in 2024, the U.S. government was on the verge of a shutdown and has previously shut down several times, and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if geopolitical or global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns or delays could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations. If the FDA is constrained in its ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. In addition, FDA-regulated industries, such as ours, face substantial uncertainty in regard to the regulatory environment we will face as we proceed with research and development efforts following the inauguration of President Trump in January 2025. Some of these efforts have manifested to date in the form of personnel measures that could impact the FDA's ability to hire and retain key personnel, which could result in delays or limitations on our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA on our product candidates in development and obtain the requisite regulatory approvals in the future. There remains general uncertainty regarding future activities. The new Administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic products. Alternatively, state governments may attempt to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their own regulatory frameworks in a manner that is adverse to our operations. If we become negatively impacted by future governmental orders, regulations, policies or guidance as a result of the new Administration, there could be a material adverse effect on us and our business.

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered becomes a "reference listed drug" in the FDA's publication, "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations", commonly known as the Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference listed drugs through submission of ANDAs in the U.S. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials. 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 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. 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. 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. The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug has expired. The U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical element (NCE). Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference listed drug. Patent protection for FYCOMPA will expire during 2025, and the FDA may approve an ANDA for a generic version at any time after that patent expires. Additionally, while we believe that FIRDAPSE and AGAMREE are protected both by patent and NCE, manufacturers may seek to launch generic versions of these products following the expiration of the applicable marketing exclusivity period, even if we still have patent protection for such product. Competition that FYCOMPA or our other products may face from generic versions could materially and adversely affect our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on investment for such products.

Certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and by-laws, and applicable provisions of Delaware corporate law, may make it more difficult for or prevent a third party from acquiring control of us or changing our Board of Directors and management. These provisions include: - the ability of our Board of Directors to issue preferred stock with voting or other rights or preferences;- limitations on the ability of stockholders to amend our charter documents, including stockholder supermajority voting requirements;- the inability of stockholders to act by written consent or to call special meetings;- requirements that special meetings of our stockholders may only be called by the Board of Directors; and - advance notice procedures our stockholders must comply with in order to nominate candidates for election to our Board of Directors or to place stockholders' proposals on the agenda for consideration at meetings of stockholders. In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law generally prohibits us from engaging in a business combination with any person who owns 15% or more of our common stock for a period of three years from the date such person acquired such common stock, unless Board or stockholder approval is obtained. These provisions could make it difficult for a third party to acquire us, or for members of our Board of Directors to be replaced, even if doing so would be beneficial to our stockholders. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our Board of Directors or management could deter potential acquirers or prevent the completion of a transaction in which our stockholders could receive a substantial premium over the then current market price for their shares.

Through our agreements with Eisai for FYCOMPA and Santhera for AGAMREE, we have agreed to purchase our supplies of each product through such companies. If either company were unable to supply sufficient supplies of drug product, our business would be adversely impacted, whether we would be required to work with these companies to resume supplies or whether we would be required to search for a sufficient third party supplier.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct pre-clinical studies or clinical studies and trials, and we rely on third parties, such as third party contract research and governmental organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators (including academic clinical investigators), to conduct studies and trials for us. Our reliance on third parties for development activities reduces our control over these activities. These third parties may not complete activities on schedule or may not conduct our pre-clinical studies and our clinical studies and trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our study design. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be adversely affected, and our efforts to obtain regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates may be delayed. If we conduct studies with other parties, we may not have control over all decisions associated with that trial. To the extent that we disagree with the other party on such issues as study design, study timing and the like, it could adversely affect our drug development plans. Although we also rely on third parties to manage the data from our studies and trials, we are responsible for confirming that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with its general investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies will require us to comply with applicable regulations and standards, including Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP), for conducting, recording and reporting the results of such studies and trials to assure that the data and the results are credible and accurate and that the human study and trial participants are adequately protected. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of these obligations and requirements, and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval for any additional indications if these requirements are not met.

In the U.S., orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user fee waivers. The company that first obtains FDA approval for a designated orphan drug for a given rare disease receives marketing exclusivity for use of that drug for the stated disease or condition for a period of seven years, with an additional six months of exclusivity if the product also qualifies for pediatric exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusive marketing rights may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective, a subsequent product is deemed clinically superior, or if the manufacturer is unable to deliver sufficient quantity of the drug. Because the extent and scope of patent protection for some of our drug products may be particularly limited, orphan drug designation – and ultimately, orphan drug exclusivity – is especially important for our products that are eligible for orphan drug designation. For eligible drugs, we plan to rely on the orphan exclusivity period to maintain a competitive position. However, if we do not obtain orphan drug exclusivity for our drug candidates or we cannot maintain orphan exclusivity for our drug candidates, our competitors may then sell the same drug to treat the same condition and our revenues will be reduced. Also, without strong patent protection, competitors may sell a generic version upon the expiration of orphan exclusivity if our patent position is not upheld. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for our future drug candidates, we may not fulfill the criteria for exclusivity or we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any orphan indication. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a particular product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition, and FDA can approve the same drug for a different patient population. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. The FDA can discontinue orphan drug exclusivity after it has been granted if the orphan drug cannot be manufactured in sufficient quantities to meet demand. Finally, there can be no assurance that the exclusivity provisions currently in the law may not be changed in the future and the impact of any such changes (if made) on us. The orphan drug exclusivity contained in the Orphan Drug Act has been the subject of recent scrutiny from the press, from some members of Congress and from some in the medical community. There can be no assurance that the exclusivity granted in the Orphan Drug Act to orphan drugs approved by the FDA will not be modified in the future, and as to how any such change might affect our products, if approved.