Lipocine (LPCN) Risk Factors

Our operations to date have primarily been limited to conducting research and development activities under license and collaboration agreements. Our current portfolio consists of product candidates at various clinical stages of development in addition to our out-licensed product TLANDO. We have never marketed or commercialized a drug product. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we were further along our commercialization path. In addition, as a pre-commercial stage business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors. Our clinical product candidates are at an early stage of development and will require significant further investment and regulatory approvals prior to marketing and commercialization. As such, our product development processes for oral neuro active steroids, LPCN 1148, LPCN 1111, LPCN 1144, and LPCN 1107 are very risky and uncertain, and our product candidates may fail to advance beyond the current study. Even if we obtain required financing, we cannot ensure successful product development or that we will obtain regulatory approval or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates and generate product revenues.

As is common in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and related industries, 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 employees 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, which would adversely affect our financial condition.

As a pharmaceutical company, even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payers, 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 could be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse and patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include: ? the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which constrains our marketing practices, educational programs, pricing policies, and relationships with healthcare providers or other entities, by prohibiting, among other things, soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual or the purchase or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; ? federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment from Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payers that are false or fraudulent; ? HIPAA, which among other things created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters; ? the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which, among other things, requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under certain federal healthcare programs to report annually information related to “payments or other transfers of value” made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by certain healthcare professionals and their immediate family members; ? HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, and its implementing regulations, which imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security, breach notification, and transmission of individually identifiable health information; and ? state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payer, including commercial insurers, and state and foreign laws governing 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. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exceptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. To the extent that any of our product candidates is ultimately sold in countries other than the United States, we may be subject to similar laws and regulations in those countries. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participating in government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. 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. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, security and fraud laws may prove costly. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General proposed new regulations on February 6, 2019 to eliminate safe harbor protection under the anti-kickback statute for drug price reductions that pharmaceutical manufacturers pay to Medicare and Medicaid plan sponsors and their pharmacy benefit managers. The proposal reflects a clear intent to substantially alter many of the current drug discount and services compensation practices among pharmaceutical manufacturers and Medicare and Medicaid managed care organizations and their pharmacy benefit managers. The proposal also reflects a skepticism that current drug discount and compensation practices among manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers are sufficiently transparent to health plans to ensure that all appropriate cost reductions and value is passed through to health plans and reflected in lower health plans costs and lower premiums for beneficiaries. If the proposal is finalized, it could result in lower prices for pharmaceutical products in general. The Biden Administration has delayed the effective date of this rule until January 1, 2023, and a lawsuit initiated by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Administration has challenged this final rule. If the regulation becomes effective, it could result in lower prices for pharmaceutical products in general. The Biden Administration will have the opportunity to address these regulations as well as drug pricing, health care access, and other health care reform issues. Any further legislative or administrative action to reduce reimbursement or health benefits to beneficiaries under the Medicare or Medicaid program could affect the payment we could collect from sale of any product in the United States.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. Human therapeutic products involve the risk of product liability claims and associated adverse publicity. Currently, the principal risks we face relate to patients in our clinical trials, who may suffer unintended consequences. Claims might be made by patients, healthcare providers or pharmaceutical companies or others. We may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. For example, to our knowledge, HPC has not been administered orally in a published clinical trial in any pregnant woman for the prevention of PTB. We cannot be certain of the safety profile upon single oral or multiple oral administration of LPCN 1107 to the patient or the fetus and its long term side effects on the mother as well as the child because (i) oral performance of LPCN 1107 may be substantially different from efficacy and/or safety standpoint compared to FDA approved and commercialized intramuscular HPC, Makena, and (ii) oral delivery of HPC could have a very different PK and/or pharmacodynamic profile that has never been experienced with non-oral administration of HPC, thus having its own significant liability exposure independent of known safety of non-oral HPC in humans. Any 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 and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates, if approved. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: ? decreased demand for our product candidates; ? injury to our reputation; ? withdrawal of clinical trial participants; ? initiation of investigations by regulators; ? costs to defend the related litigation; ? a diversion of management’s time and our resources; ? substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients; ? product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions; ? loss of revenues from product sales; and ? the inability to commercialize any of our product candidates, if approved. We may not have or be able to obtain or maintain sufficient and affordable insurance coverage, and without sufficient coverage any claim brought against us could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We run clinical trials through investigators that could be negligent through no fault of our own and which could affect patients, cause potential liability claims against us and result in delayed or stopped clinical trials. We are required in many cases by contractual obligations, to indemnify collaborators, partners, third party contractors, clinical investigators and institutions. These indemnifications could result in a material impact due to product liability claims against us and/or these groups. We currently carry $3.0 million in product liability insurance, which we believe is appropriate for our clinical trials. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

Our licensing partner may face competition for TLANDO, if final approval is received, from lower priced T-replacement therapies from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 contains provisions that may change U.S. importation laws and expand pharmacists’ and wholesalers’ ability to import lower priced versions of an approved drug and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. These changes to U.S. importation laws will not take effect unless and until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the changes will pose no additional risk to the public’s health and safety and will result in a significant reduction in the cost of products to consumers. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has not yet announced any plans to make this required certification. A number of federal legislative proposals have been made to implement the changes to the U.S. importation laws without any certification and to broaden permissible imports in other ways. Even if the changes do not take effect, and other changes are not enacted, imports from Canada and elsewhere may continue to increase due to market and political forces, and the limited enforcement resources of the FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other government agencies. For example, Pub. L. No. 111-83, which was signed into law in October 2009, provides appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2010 fiscal year, expressly prohibits U.S. Customs and Border Protection from using funds to prevent individuals from importing from Canada less than a 90-day supply of a prescription drug for personal use, when the drug otherwise complies with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Further, several states and local governments have implemented importation schemes for their citizens, and, in the absence of federal action to curtail such activities, we expect other states and local governments to launch importation efforts. The importation of foreign products that compete with our products could have an adverse effect on our revenue and profitability.

We believe that there could be many different applications for products successfully derived from our technologies and that the anticipated market for products under development could continue to expand. However, due to competition from existing or new products, potential changes to the class TRT label by the FDA and the yet to be established commercial viability of our products, no assurance can be given that these beliefs will prove to be correct. Physicians, patients, formularies, payors or the medical community in general may not accept or utilize any products that we or our collaborative partners may develop. Other drugs may be approved during our clinical testing which could change the accepted treatments for the disease targeted and make our compound obsolete. Our ability to commercialize our products with success may depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement to patients for the cost of such products and related treatment will be available from governmental health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other organizations, as well as the ability of private payors to pay for or afford our drugs. Adequate third-party coverage may not be available to patients to allow us to maintain price levels sufficient for us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payers can be critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. Additionally, current manufacturers of drug products may have agreements with payors that may limit the ability of new products to get on formulary or require a step edit with an existing product before reimbursement or a new product will occur. Even if we obtain coverage for our products, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are less likely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Payers may require a more arduous prior authorization process as a condition to payment for TRT therapy. This could adversely affect the market for TRT products. In the United States and in many other countries, pricing and/or profitability of some or all prescription pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals are subject to varying degrees of government control. Healthcare reform and controls on healthcare spending may limit the price we charge for any products and the amounts thereof that we can sell. In particular, in the United States, the federal government and private insurers have changed and have considered ways to change, the manner in which healthcare services are provided. In March 2010, ACA became law in the United States. ACA substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly affects the healthcare industry. The provisions of ACA of importance to our potential product candidates include the following: ? an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; ? an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; ? expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance; ? a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; ? extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; ? expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals beginning in 2014 and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for certain individuals with specified income levels, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; ? expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program; ? new requirements to report annually certain financial arrangements with physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and teaching hospitals; ? a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to licensed practitioners, pharmacies of hospitals and other healthcare entities; and ? a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, created, among other things, measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, starting in 2013. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 was signed into law on April 16, 2015 and implemented the most significant change in Medicare reimbursement since the ACA was enacted. This 2015 law authorizes a new Medicare pay –for-performance reimbursement system for physicians, which will reward physicians for performance on metrics related to quality of care, resource use, meaningful use of electronic medical records, and clinical practice improvement activities. The Bipartisan Budget Act was enacted on November 2, 2015, and among provisions, restricts the types of facilities that may receive hospital reimbursement under Medicare. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations. We anticipate that ACA will result in additional downward pressure on the reimbursement we may receive for any approved and covered product and could seriously harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. In the future, the U.S. government may institute further controls and different reimbursement schemes and limits on Medicare and Medicaid spending or reimbursement that may affect the payments we could collect from sales of any products in the United States. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General issued final regulations on November 30, 2020 to eliminate safe harbor protection under the anti-kickback statute for drug price reductions that pharmaceutical manufacturers pay to Medicare and Medicaid plan sponsors and their pharmacy benefit managers. The proposal reflects a clear intent to substantially alter many of the current drug discount and services compensation practices among pharmaceutical manufacturers and Medicare and Medicaid managed care organizations and their pharmacy benefit managers. The proposal also reflects a skepticism that current drug discount and compensation practices among manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers are sufficiently transparent to health plans to ensure that all appropriate cost reductions and value is passed through to health plans and reflected in lower health plans costs and lower premiums for beneficiaries. The Biden Administration has delayed the effective date of this rule until January 1, 2023, and a lawsuit initiated by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Administration has challenged this final rule. If the regulation becomes effective, it could result in lower prices for pharmaceutical products in general. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued an interim final rule on November 20, 2020, that would tie prices for certain drugs under Medicare Part B to the lowest price for those drugs available in certain countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. This “most favored nation” drug pricing rule is also the subject of lawsuits, and a federal court has placed an injunction on the implementation of the rule. This rule, if finalized, could also result in lower prices for pharmaceutical products in general. The Biden Administration will have the opportunity to address these regulations as well as drug pricing, health care access, and other health care reform issues. Any further legislative or administrative action to reduce reimbursement or health benefits to beneficiaries under the Medicare or Medicaid program could affect the payment we could collect from sale of any product in the United States.

We rely on a limited third-party supplier for our supply NAS, the active pharmaceutical ingredient of LPCN 1154 and LPCN 2101. Since there are only a limited number of NAS suppliers in the world, if a supplier ceases to provide us with NAS, we may be unable to procure NAS on developmental or commercially favorable terms. Furthermore, the limited number of suppliers of NAS may provide such suppliers with a greater opportunity to raise their prices. If we are unable to obtain NAS in a timely manner and/or in sufficient quantities, our ability to develop NAS may be adversely affected.