Theralink Technologies (THER) Risk Factors

The patent positions of companies such as ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of method of use patents or reformulation patents has emerged in the United States. The relevant patent laws and their interpretation outside of the United States are also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our technology and to enforce the patent rights that we license, and could affect the value of such intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from using, selling, offering to sell, or importing technology that infringe on our intellectual property will depend in part on our success in obtaining and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot guarantee that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications we may file in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our technology or the methods of use. Patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space are evolving and involve many risks and uncertainties. For example, third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our technology. The issued patents that we in-license and those that may be issue in the future may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related technology or could limit the term of patent protection that otherwise may exist for our technology. In addition, the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies that are outside the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents that we own or exclusively in-license. For these reasons, we may face competition with respect to our technology. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing, and regulatory review of a potential technology, it is possible that, before any particular technology can be commercialized, any patent protection for such technology may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing the commercial advantage the patent provides.

We intend to develop diagnostic tests for clients that cannot currently be provided using test kits approved or cleared by the FDA. The FDA has been considering changes to the way that it regulates these LDTs. Currently, all LDTs are conducted and offered in accordance with CLIA, and individual state licensing procedures. The FDA has published a draft guidance document that would require FDA clearance or approval of a subset of LDTs, as well as a modified approach for some lower risk LDTs that may require FDA oversight short of the full premarket approval or clearance process. Congress may enact legislation to provide a regulatory framework for the FDA's role with regard to LDTs. As a result, there is a risk that the FDA's proposed regulatory process could delay the offering of certain tests and result in additional validation costs and fees. This FDA approval or clearance process may be time-consuming and costly, with no guarantee of ultimate approval or clearance. In 2014, FDA issued draft guidance announcing that it would end its historical policy of enforcement discretion regarding LDTs and outlining the first of multiple frameworks that have been proposed for their regulation. FDA announced in 2016 that it no longer planned to finalize its draft guidance and that it would continue to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs. On January 13, 2017, the FDA published a non-binding "Discussion Paper" proposing a framework of LDT oversight largely consistent with the draft guidance, "to spur further dialogue" and give "congressional authorizing committees the opportunity to develop a legislative solution." Recent agency announcements made in the context of the COVID-19 public health emergency have produced a shifting policy landscape and further uncertainty regarding FDA's role in regulating LDTs: in August 2020, HHS announced that FDA would not require premarket review of LDTs absent notice-and-comment rulemaking, but in November 2021, HHS issued a statement withdrawing that prior announcement, indicating a return to FDA's longstanding approach to the regulation and enforcement discretion toward LDTs. Congress has also considered a number of legislative proposals in recent years that would amend the regulatory framework for LDTs, including, among other requirements, FDA premarket review of certain LDTs. The most recent such proposal, the VALID Act, was introduced in both the House and Senate on June 24, 2021. A competing legislative proposal, the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act of 2021 ("VITAL Act"), was introduced in the Senate on May 18, 2021. However, it remains uncertain whether Congress will enact legislation regulating LDTs, and, if so, whether the legislation will be similar to the framework described in FDA's 2014 draft guidance or Discussion Paper, or either the VITAL or VALID Acts. It is possible that legislation and resulting FDA regulation may result in increased regulatory burdens and costs for us to seek marketing authorization for and maintain ongoing compliance for our existing tests, any modifications thereto, or any future tests we may develop. If the government begins to regulate our tests, it could require a significant volume of applications, which would be burdensome. Furthermore, governmental bodies could take a long time to review such applications and/or document responses if other laboratories were also required to file applications and/or document responses for each of their LDTs. In the event that the FDA begins to regulate our tests, it may require additional pre-market clinical testing prior to submitting a regulatory notification or application for commercial sales. Such pre-market clinical testing could delay the commencement or completion of clinical testing, significantly increase our test development costs, delay commercialization of any future tests, and interrupt sales of our current tests. Additionally, the results of pre-clinical trials or previous clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, and clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities. Many of the factors that may cause or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to delay or denial of regulatory clearance or approval. The commencement of clinical trials may be delayed due to insufficient patient enrollment, which is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial. Each of these outcomes would harm our ability to market our tests and/or to achieve sustained profitability.

Securities class action lawsuits and derivative lawsuits are often brought against public companies that have entered into acquisition, merger or other business combination agreements. Even if such a lawsuit is without merit, defending against these claims can result in substantial costs and divert management time and resources. An adverse judgment could result in monetary damages, which could have a negative impact on IMAC's and Theralink's respective liquidity and financial condition. Lawsuits that may be brought against IMAC, Theralink and their respective directors and could seek, among other things, injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including a request to rescind parts of the Merger Agreement already implemented and to otherwise enjoin the parties from consummating the Merger. One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that no injunction by any court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction has been entered and continues to be in effect and no law has been adopted or is effective, in either case that prohibits or makes illegal the closing of the Merger. Consequently, if a plaintiff is successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting completion of the Merger, that injunction may delay or prevent the Merger from being completed within the expected timeframe or at all.

Companies like ours depend upon our scientific staff to discover new technologies and predictive biomarker. They utilize these biomarkers to recommend treatment guidance for cancer patients. The quality and reputation of our scientific, clinical and regulatory staff, especially the senior staff, and their success in performing their responsibilities, may directly influence the success of our technology development program. As we pursue successful commercialization of Theralink, we will need to hire sales and marketing, and operations executive management staff in order to ensure our organizational success. In addition, we require additional executive officers to provide strategic and operational guidance. Our inability to recruit key management, scientific, clinical, regulatory, medical, operational and other personnel, may delay or prevent us from achieving our business objectives. We face intense competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions, government entities and other organizations.

Competition in the cancer information field is intense and accentuated by the rapid pace of advancements in product development. Further, research and discoveries by others may result in breakthroughs that render potential technologies obsolete before they generate revenue. Many universities and private and public research institutes may in the future become active in cancer research, which may be in direct competition with us. Some of our competitors in the cancer predictive biomarker space have substantially greater research and development capabilities than we do. Their processing, marketing, financial and managerial resources may be greater than ours. Acquisitions of competing companies by large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies could enhance our competitors' resources. In addition, our competitors may obtain patent protection or FDA approval and commercialize predictive biomarkers more rapidly than we do, which may impact future sales of our technology. We expect that competition among technology options will be based, among other things, on price, safety, reliability, availability, patent protection, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. Our profitability and financial position will suffer if our technology cannot compete effectively in the marketplace.

There has been and will continue to be significant efforts by both federal and state agencies to reduce costs in government healthcare programs and otherwise implement government control of healthcare costs. In addition, private payors continually seek ways to reduce and control overall healthcare costs. An increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States will continue to put pressure on the pricing of healthcare services. Uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of new applications and services. Third-party payors, including governmental payors such as Medicare and private payors, are scrutinizing new medical products and services and may not cover or may limit coverage and the level of reimbursement for our services. Third-party insurance coverage may not be available to patients for any of our existing service candidates or for tests we discover and develop, and a substantial portion of the testing for which we bill our hospital and laboratory clients may ultimately be paid by third-party payers. Likewise, any pricing pressure exerted by these third-party payers on our clients may, in turn, be exerted by our clients on us. If the government and other third-party payers do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement for our tests, it could adversely affect our operating results, cash flow and our financial condition.