TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “objective,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “should,” “will,” or “would,” and or the negative of these terms, or other comparable terminology intended to identify statements about the future. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we caution you that these statements are based on a combination of facts and factors currently known by us and our expectations of the future, about which we cannot be certain.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, statements about:

Forward-looking statements appear primarily in the sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K entitled “Item 1 – Business,” “Item 1A “Risk Factors,” “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Item 7A – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” and “Item 8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame or at all. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

​

Risk Factors Summary

The following summarizes the principal factors that make an investment in us speculative or risky, all of which are more fully described in “Item 1A – Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This summary should be read in conjunction with the Risk Factors section and should not be relied upon as an exhaustive summary of the material risks facing our business.

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

Risks Related to the Commercialization of ZTALMY and Other Future Product Candidates

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Regulatory Approval of our Product Candidates

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Risks Related to Regulatory Compliance

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Risks Related to our Business Operations

​

PART I

Unless the context requires otherwise, any references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company” or “Marinus” refers to Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Unless otherwise indicated, all share and per share amounts in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect, as applicable, the occurrence of a 1-for-4 reverse split of our common stock that occurred on September 23, 2020.

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Our Company

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of products for patients suffering from rare genetic epilepsies and other seizure disorders. On March 18, 2022, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved our new drug application (NDA) for the use of ZTALMY® (ganaxolone) oral suspension for the treatment of seizures associated with cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder (CDD) in patients 2 years of age and older. This is our first FDA-approved product which we plan to commercialize in the United States. We also plan to continue to develop ganaxolone for other rare genetic epilepsies and for a number of additional indications including other seizure disorders. While the precise mechanism by which ganaxolone exerts its therapeutic effects in the treatment of seizures associated with CDD is unknown, its anticonvulsant effects are thought to result from positive allosteric modulation of the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A) receptor in the Central Nervous System (CNS). Ganaxolone is being developed in formulations for two different routes of administration: intravenous (IV) and oral. Ganaxolone is a synthetic analog of allopregnanolone, an endogenous neurosteroid. The different formulations are intended to maximize potential therapeutic applications of ganaxolone for adult and pediatric patient populations, in both acute and chronic care, and for both in-patient and self-administered settings. Ganaxolone acts at both synaptic and extrasynaptic GABA_A receptors, a target known for its anti-seizure, antidepressant and anxiolytic potential.

​

Our Strategy

Our mission is to maximize the value of ganaxolone as a best-in-class therapy for rare seizure and neurological disorders through development of multiple formulations for oral and IV administration. The key elements of our strategy include the following:

COVID-19

The continued global spread of COVID-19, including the Omicron variant, has impacted our clinical operations and timelines. For example, our Phase 3 RAISE trial in RSE is conducted in hospitals, including intensive care units and academic medical centers, which have experienced high rates of COVID-19 admissions. Several academic medical centers and intensive care units participating in the RAISE trial have experienced COVID-related difficulties, including staff turnover and the need to devote significant resources to patients with COVID-19, which has resulted in site initiation and enrollment delays for the RAISE trial. Given these COVID-19-related challenges and our recent interruption in drug supply, we now expect our top-line data readout for the RAISE trial to be available in the second half of 2023. In addition, our ganaxolone clinical trials in the outpatient setting may be negatively impacted if patients and their caregivers do not want to participate while the COVID-19 pandemic persists. The duration and severity of the pandemic and its long-term impact on our business are uncertain at this time.

Our Products and Product Candidates

ZTALMY® (ganaxolone) oral suspension CXX

​

ZTALMY is an oral suspension given three times per day that we have developed for the treatment of CDD.  ZTALMY was approved by the FDA in March 2022 for the treatment of seizures associated with CDD in patients 2 years of age and older.  ZTALMY is pending scheduling by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) as a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, which we expect to be completed in June 2022 (DEA Scheduling).  We expect to have ZTALMY available for commercial sale and shipment to patients with a prescription in the U.S. in mid-July 2022.

​

CDD is a serious and rare genetic disorder that is caused by a mutation of the CDKL5 gene, located on the X chromosome. CDD is a severely debilitating and potentially fatal genetic condition, which occurs with an estimated frequency of 1:40,000 live births in the U.S. It predominantly affects females and is characterized by early onset, difficult to control seizures and severe neurodevelopmental impairment. The CDKL5 gene encodes proteins essential for normal brain function. Most children affected by CDD have neurodevelopmental deficits such as difficulty walking, talking and taking care of themselves. Many also suffer from scoliosis, gastrointestinal dysfunction or sleep disorders. Genetic testing is available to determine if a patient has a mutation in the CDKL5 gene.

In June 2017, we were granted FDA orphan drug designation for ganaxolone for the treatment of CDD. Additionally, in November 2019, the European Medical Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) granted orphan drug designation for ganaxolone for the treatment of CDD. In July 2020, the FDA granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation (RPD Designation) for ganaxolone for the treatment of CDD. The FDA grants RPD Designation for diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. and in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations occur primarily in individuals 18 years of age and younger. The approval of ZTALMY in CDD is based on data from the Phase 3 Marigold double-blind placebo-controlled trial, in which 101 patients were randomized and

treated with ZTALMY. Patients showed a median 30.7% reduction in 28-day major motor seizure frequency, compared to a median 6.9% reduction for those receiving placebo, achieving the trial’s primary endpoint (p=0.0036). In the Marigold open label extension study, patients treated with ZTALMY for at least 12 months (n=48) experienced a median 49.6% reduction in major motor seizure frequency. In the clinical development program, ZTALMY demonstrated efficacy, safety and tolerability with the most common adverse reactions (AEs) (incidence >5% and at least twice the rate of placebo) in the ZTALMY group being somnolence, pyrexia, salivary hypersecretion, and seasonal allergy.

​

Priority Review Voucher. As a result of the RPD Designation for ganaxolone for the treatment of CDD, the FDA awarded the Company a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher (PRV). This voucher may be redeemed for priority review by the FDA in a subsequent marketing application. Vouchers can be sold or transferred to a third party by the voucher recipient. We intend to monetize the PRV to fund on-going operations, including continued clinical development and commercialization efforts for ganaxolone.

Commercial Strategy. Since ZTALMY was approved by FDA, we are focused on implementing and executing an integrated launch plan making ZTALMY available upon DEA Scheduling to CDD patients through a specialty pharmacy. Key launch strategies include: (1) establishing our supply chain network and quality management system to assure product is available to patients; (2) driving clinical awareness of ZTALMY as the first and only FDA approved product indicated specifically for seizures associated with CDD; (3) deploying our field sales force to target physicians who treat this rare pediatric patient population; (4) engaging commercial and government payers with the objective of obtaining insurance coverage; and (5) developing our internal capabilities (such as Finance, HR, IT, Data Analytics and Compliance) to support our first launch as a commercial company.

Marketing Strategy.  At launch, our strategy is to reinforce that seizures are central to the constellation of CDD symptoms, establish ZTALMY as central to the comprehensive management of CDD, and ensure that patients have seamless access to ZTALMY from prescription through fulfillment. 

Sales Strategy.   Our sales leadership is in place, and we plan to hire approximately 16 regional account managers experienced in rare disease as our commercial sales force.  We expect to have the majority of these regional account managers hired by the end of the second quarter of 2022. Our field force will target identified key accounts and centers of excellence for CDD. Based on our market research, we estimate the addressable patient population for ZTALMY in CDD in the U.S. is approximately 2,000 patients. As this is the first product approved by the FDA specifically for seizures associated with CDD and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD10) code for CDD was established in 2020, there is limited data available for this specific market.   

Market Access.  We have established a cross-functional payer and reimbursement account team with the objective of obtaining and maintaining reimbursement (coverage) of ZTALMY.  We plan to focus our efforts on reimbursement from commercial payers where pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) control the majority of commercial pharmacy-benefit lives and government payers, primarily Medicaid for the target population for CDD.  We expect approximately 60% of the CDD patient population will access coverage through both Fee-for-Service and Managed Medicaid, with the remaining 40% accessing commercial coverage, with the top PBMs having significant influence.

Specialty Pharmacy.  We plan to engage a specialty pharmacy to provide services for patients, including patient enrollment, benefit verification and investigation, prior authorization support, patient education and drug counseling, dispensing of product and shipment coordination.

Infrastructure.  We continue to develop our internal capabilities and processes to support a commercial stage company.  We have implemented a healthcare compliance program to guide our compliance with rules and regulations regarding pharmaceutical sales. 

​

Manufacture of Commercial Supply. We are in the process of negotiating a commercial supply agreement for ganaxolone API with our current manufacturer. We are also finalizing a commercial supply agreement with our current supplier of finished bulk drug product.

​

Regulated as a Controlled Substance. ZTALMY is expected to be regulated by the DEA as a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Under the CSA, drugs are classified into five (5) distinct categories or schedules depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. Based on our assessment of the abuse-related preclinical and clinical data on ganaxolone and its mechanism of action, we expect ZTALMY to be a Schedule IV drug. Schedule IV is defined by the DEA as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. We expect this scheduling process to take approximately 90 days. We plan to commercially launch ZTALMY after this scheduling process is completed. As a controlled substance, ganaxolone will be subject to the applicable CSA requirements such as registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting, storage manufacturing, distribution, importation and other requirements.

​

Post Marketing Requirements. In connection with the FDA approval of ZTALMY for CDD, we have a number of post marketing commitments which include: 2-year carcinogenicity studies of ganaxolone and the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; a 26-week carcinogenicity of ganaxolone in transgenic mice; a juvenile animal toxicity study of the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; phase 1 renal and hepatic impairment studies and a thorough QTc study; extractable/leachable study results on the container closure system; a CNS distribution study of the M47 metabolite in rats; and in vitro studies to assess the drug interaction potential of M47 metabolite. We expect to be able to complete the required FDA studies within the requested FDA timeframe.

​

Marketing Authorization Application

In August 2021, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the EMA granted our request for accelerated assessment of ganaxolone for the treatment of seizures associated with CDD. The marketing authorization application (MAA) for ganaxolone was submitted to the EMA on October 11, 2021 and on October 28, 2021 we received formal notification from the EMA that the CDD MAA was validated. With this validation, the EMA began its formal review of the MAA under the centralized procedure for all member states of the European Union (EU), Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

In February 2022, the MAA was converted to a standard review and we reached an agreement with the EMA to extend the Day 120 clock stop by three months to allow sufficient time to respond to questions received as part of the review process. As a result, we expect the CHMP’s opinion on the MAA by the end of 2022.

Our Pipeline

We are developing ganaxolone in indications where there is a mechanistic rationale for ganaxolone to provide a benefit, including the following indications:

​

We are targeting resupply of clinical trial material by the end of May 2022. Given these most recent challenges, we expect our top-line data readout for the RAISE trial to be available in the second half of 2023.

Planning continues for a separate RSE trial to support an MAA (RAISE II trial). Following a meeting with the EMA in the first quarter of 2021, at which we discussed trial design, and due to the delay in clinical trial supply mentioned above, trial initiation is planned for the first half of 2023. The RAISE II trial will be a double blind, placebo-controlled pivotal registration trial expected to enroll 70 patients who have failed first-line benzodiazepine treatment and at least one prior second-line AED. Patients will receive either ganaxolone or placebo, administered in combination with a standard-of-care second-line AED. The RAISE II trial in Europe will provide data that is complementary to the U.S. RAISE trial, with ganaxolone or placebo being administered in combination with a standard-of-care AED. There are two additional key differences from the U.S. RAISE trial. First, rather than including only progression to IV anesthesia as a treatment failure, the endpoint for RAISE II will include any escalation of care. This could be IV anesthesia or another second-line IV AED. Second, the primary analysis for the RAISE II trial will be a responder analysis, with response defined as SE cessation within 30 minutes and no escalation of care within 36 hours. The U.S. RAISE trial specifies a co-primary endpoint, requiring statistical significance for both early onset and durability of effect.

The FDA has indicated alignment on the overall trial design for a third SE study, the RESET trial, which will study ganaxolone in ESE. We are making preparations to begin U.S. enrollment of this Phase 2 clinical trial in the second half of 2022. The RESET trial is expected to be conducted in emergency rooms under exception from informed consent guidelines and is expected to enroll patients with convulsive ESE. We expect that the RESET trial will be composed of two stages, the initial open-label, dose optimization stage and subsequent double-blind placebo-controlled stage. We anticipate that during the open-label portion of the trial, multiple sequential cohorts of patients will be assessed to determine the bolus dose and subsequent IV infusion rate and infusion duration to be used in the double-blind second stage of the trial. We expect that this double-blind placebo-controlled phase will enroll approximately 80 ESE patients equally distributed between two arms of the trial who, in addition to standard of care, will receive either IV ganaxolone or placebo. We also expect that the primary efficacy endpoint of the RESET trial will be the absence of electrographic (rapid EEG) evidence of SE or recurrence of generalized convulsions at 1 hour after the initiation of treatment. We plan to announce top-line data from the RESET trial by the end of 2023.

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC)

TSC is a rare genetic disorder that affects many organs and causes non-malignant tumors in the brain, skin, kidney, heart, eyes, and lungs. The condition is caused by inherited mutations in either the TSC1 gene or the TSC2 gene. TSC occurs with a frequency of 1:6,000 live births and a mutation is found in 85% of patients. While the disease phenotype can be extremely variable, epilepsy occurs in up to 85% of TSC patients. TSC is a leading cause of genetic epilepsy, often manifesting in the first year of life as either focal seizures or infantile spasms. There are currently few disease-specific treatments approved for seizures in TSC. Orphan drug designation for ganaxolone for the treatment in TSC was granted by the FDA in August 2021 and by the EMA in October 2021.

In August 2021, we announced top-line data from our open-label Phase 2 trial (CALM trial) evaluating the safety and efficacy of adjunctive oral ganaxolone in 23 patients with seizures associated with TSC. The CALM trial enrolled 23 patients ages 2 to 32 who entered a four-week baseline period followed by a 12-week treatment period, during which they received up to 600 mg of ganaxolone (oral liquid suspension) three times a day. Patients who met eligibility criteria were able to continue ganaxolone treatment during a 24-week extension. The primary endpoint was the percent change in 28-day TSC-associated seizure frequency during the 12-week treatment period relative to the four-week baseline period. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of patients experiencing a greater than or equal to 50% reduction in 28-day TSC-associated seizure frequency through the end of the 12-week treatment period compared to the 4-week baseline period.

The primary endpoint showed a median 16.6% reduction in 28-day in the frequency of TSC-associated seizures relative to the four-week baseline period. A secondary endpoint showed that the proportion of patients that achieved at least a 50% seizure reduction was 30.4%. During the trial, patients with focal seizures (n=19) showed a median 25.2% reduction in focal seizure frequency. Ganaxolone was generally well-tolerated with somnolence reported as the most common AE. In addition, one serious adverse event (SAE) of worsening seizures occurred, which was assessed by the investigator as treatment-related. Four patients discontinued the trial due to AEs. Additionally, the data from the trial

suggested that in patients on concomitant Epidiolex, early elevation of ganaxolone blood levels occurred and appeared to be linked to greater somnolence. We have adjusted the titration schedule in the Phase 3 TSC trial, with the goal of improving tolerability.

In response to our request for an End of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA regarding a proposed Phase 3 TSC trial, the FDA provided written responses to our questions in lieu of a meeting. We believe the written responses show overall alignment on the clinical development plan in TSC. We also believe that, based on FDA’s written responses, with the FDA approval of CDD, a single trial could serve the necessary support for an NDA for TSC in the U.S. In response to our request for Protocol Assistance, which is a special form of scientific advice available for developers of designated orphan medicines for rare diseases, EMA provided written feedback in December 2021 in lieu of a meeting. We believe the written responses, as did those from the FDA, show overall alignment on the clinical development plan in TSC. After commencing site initiations in the first quarter of 2022, we are actively screening patients in the U.S. for the first patient to be enrolled in a global Phase 3 randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial (TrustTSC trial) of adjunctive ganaxolone in approximately 160 TSC patients. The primary endpoint for the TrustTSC trial is percent change in 28-day frequency of TSC-associated seizures.

Lennox-Gestaut Syndrome (LGS) 

​

LGS is a severe form of epilepsy that typically begins between one and eight years of age. Affected children experience multiple seizure types that are often unresponsive to treatment, the most common being atonic, tonic and atypical absence seizures. Children with LGS may also have neurodevelopmental delay and behavioral problems. 

​

We plan to pursue the development of ganaxolone for LGS, given the overlap in seizure types and etiologies with other disorders where ganaxolone has potential to improve clinical outcomes, such as CDD and TSC. We are planning to use a second-generation formulation of ganaxolone for our LGS development program.

​

Orphan Designations

The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to ganaxolone for the treatment of SE, CDD, and TSC. Orphan drug designation is granted by the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development to novel drugs or biologics that treat a rare disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States. The designation provides the drug developer with a seven-year period of U.S. marketing exclusivity, as well as tax credits for clinical research costs, the ability to apply for annual grant funding, clinical research trial design assistance and waiver of Prescription Drug User Fee Act filing fees.

Ganaxolone Mechanism of Action

Ganaxolone is a methylated analog of the endogenous neurosteroid, allopregnanolone. Allopregnanolone exhibits potent anxiolytic, antidepressant and anti-seizure activity. Unlike allopregnanolone, ganaxolone cannot be back-converted to active intermediates possessing steroid hormone activity.

Both ganaxolone and allopregnanolone bind to GABA_A receptors that, when activated, permit flow of chloride ions into the neuron. This change in concentration of chloride ions results in hyperpolarization and is the basis for the inhibitory effect of GABA. Classic GABA_A active drugs bind only at receptors located on the synapse between neurons. However, both allopregnanolone and ganaxolone also bind to extrasynaptic GABA_A receptors. Synaptic GABA_A receptors respond quickly to inhibit neurotransmission (phasic inhibition), while extrasynaptic GABA_A receptors provide a constant baseline level of inhibition (tonic inhibition).

Activity at extrasynaptic GABA_A receptors may be of particular importance for the prolonged seizures in SE, during which synaptic, but not extrasynaptic, receptors become internalized into the neuron and are unavailable for binding of GABAergic drugs.

Safety Overview

Oral Safety

More than 1,900 individuals have received oral formulations of ganaxolone for durations from one day to more than two years at doses of 50 to 2,000 mg/day. Ganaxolone was administered in Phase 2 clinical trials to pediatric patients at doses up to 1,800 mg/day and to adult patients at doses up to 1,875 mg/day. No drug-related deaths occurred in any of these clinical trials and the majority of AEs were non-serious and resolved upon discontinuation of therapy. The most common side effects with oral ganaxolone relate to sedation or somnolence. In the oral ganaxolone safety database there are no trends of medically important changes in blood chemistry, vital signs, liver function, renal function or cardiovascular parameters in adult or pediatric populations.

In the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial (Marigold Study), which evaluated the use of oral ganaxolone in children and young adults with CDD ganaxolone was generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with previous clinical trials. The most frequent AE was somnolence.

In the Phase 2 TSC trial, ganaxolone was generally well tolerated with somnolence reported as the most common AE consistent with previous studies. Concomitant Epidiolex appeared to be linked to greater somnolence. A study is planned to assess whether there is a potential for drug-drug interaction between ganaxolone and Epidiolex.

​

IV Safety

In 2016, we completed a Phase 1 dose-escalation trial with IV ganaxolone that enrolled 36 patients, designed to determine the PK, pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of IV ganaxolone administered as an ascending bolus dose (Stage 1) or continuous infusion (Stage 2).  Thirty-six healthy volunteers were enrolled.

Every dose regimen of IV ganaxolone, either bolus or continuous infusion, was generally safe and well-tolerated and rapidly reached targeted dose levels.  Six treatment-emergent AEs were reported, all of which were mild in severity and resolved without intervention. Only headache was considered possibly related to study treatment. No patient discontinued due to an AE and no SAEs were reported. IV ganaxolone plasma concentrations were generally proportional to the administered dose. In addition, the continuous infusion of IV ganaxolone achieved the targeted exposure levels associated with anticonvulsant activity.

In 2019, we announced positive top-line results in our open-label, dose-finding Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating IV ganaxolone in patients with RSE. In the trial, ganaxolone had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile for the RSE patient population in all dose groups. There were 10 SAEs; eight were considered not related to treatment and two were considered treatment-related (TRSAEs). The TRSAEs were severe sedation in two patients that led to early ganaxolone discontinuation: one in the medium dose group on day three and one in the target dose group on day one. There were 50 AEs, thirteen of which were considered treatment-related (TRAEs) reported in seven patients.  The most commonly reported TRAEs were somnolence, mild hypotension and sedation.

Preclinical Pharmacology and Toxicology

We have completed preclinical safety pharmacology and toxicology testing, including reproductive toxicology. Animal pharmacokinetic and in vitro studies show that ganaxolone is metabolized primarily by the Cytochrome P450, family 3, subfamily A (CYP3A) family of liver enzymes, a common route of drug metabolism. All in vitro studies have shown that ganaxolone has low potential for interaction with other drugs at several multiples of observed human ganaxolone levels. Our recent Phase 2 clinical study in TSC suggests a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction (DDI) between Epidiolex and ganaxolone where co-administration produces higher plasma levels of ganaxolone than those produced by administration of ganaxolone without Epidiolex.  Preclinical in vitro studies have been conducted in an effort to identify the precise DDI between these two drugs.  These studies indicate that the DDI is not caused in the liver by Epidiolex or its metabolites interfering with ganaxolone metabolism. Furthermore, neither ganaxolone nor its metabolites have a ketone ring at the 3-position, a requirement for hormonal activity. In binding and functional activity studies, ganaxolone has no appreciable affinity for estrogen or progesterone receptors. We found no evidence of changes

in blood, liver, kidney or the gastrointestinal systems indicating functional or anatomical adverse effects associated with either single- or multiple-dose treatment with ganaxolone in preclinical safety pharmacology studies, nor have we seen evidence of any end organ toxicity from human clinical trials. We have not detected potential for ganaxolone to cause cellular mutations or carcinogenicity in trials to date.

Ganaxolone is metabolized extensively in animals and humans.  During the development of CDD, one major metabolite (M2) was present in plasma of humans that was not found in plasma of rats or dogs. The chemical structure of M2 has been identified. In October 2020, the FDA communicated that the characterization of the activity of the M2 metabolite would need to be included in the NDA submission for CDD. We have determined that M2 has no functional activity on GABA receptors and have concluded that M2 does not contribute to the pharmacological activity associated with ganaxolone administration.  The results of the activity assay were included in the July 2021 NDA submission for CDD, as required. Additionally, a dose range finding study in rats and an in vivo micronucleus with comet analysis for the detection of genotoxicity have been conducted, with the results from the verified draft study report showing no genotoxicity found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. The final study report is expected by the end of the second quarter of 2022. Results from additional preclinical studies are required to the FDA as post-marketing requirement(s). These include: 2-year carcinogenicity studies of ganaxolone and the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; a 26-week carcinogenicity of ganaxolone in transgenic mice; a juvenile animal toxicity study of the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; a CNS distribution study with M47 metabolite, in rats; and in vitro studies to assess the drug interaction potential of M47 metabolite. We plan to complete the required FDA studies within the required FDA timeframe. In the EU, if additional studies are needed, these are usually required before or during MAA review.

​

In reproductive toxicology studies, ganaxolone did not cause malformations of the embryo or fetus in rats or mice and did not significantly affect the development of offspring. No changes in sperm parameters were found. We believe these findings are important, as many currently marketed AEDs have shown developmental toxicities in animal studies, including fetal death and skeletal abnormalities. Valproate, carbamazepine, phenytoin, topiramate and other AEDs have been linked to birth defects in humans (e.g., head and facial malformations and lowered birth weight). These findings have resulted in labeling for these drugs indicating evidence of human fetal risk.

Intellectual Property

The proprietary nature of and protection for ZTALMY, other indications being developed for ganaxolone and any other future product candidates, discovery programs and know-how are important to our business. We have sought patent protection in the United States and internationally for synthetic methods for making ganaxolone, ganaxolone nanoparticles, which are used in certain oral solid, oral liquid, and IV dose formulations, other injectable and oral ganaxolone formulations, and methods of treatment using ganaxolone. Our policy is to pursue, maintain and defend patent rights whether developed internally or licensed from third parties and to protect the technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business. The patents and patent applications owned by us comprise approximately 15 different patent families, filed in various jurisdictions around the world.

Nanoparticle Ganaxolone Formulations. We own approximately four patent families directed to nanoparticle formulations of ganaxolone and complexing agents that deliver consistent exposure and improved stability of ganaxolone, and certain uses of the formulations. One of the patent families includes eight issued United States patents with claims directed to certain solid and liquid ganaxolone formulations and certain methods for the making and use thereof. Corresponding foreign patents have been granted in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. The 20-year term for patents in this family runs through 2026, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions. We have not out-licensed any rights to practice these patents in any of these territories. Pursuant to our agreement with Domain Russia Investments Limited (DRI), we assigned to DRI patent rights, which rights were subsequently assigned to NovaMedica LLC (NovaMedica), along with the right to develop and commercialize ganaxolone in Russia and certain other member countries of the Eurasian Patent Organization. For more information regarding the DRI and NovaMedica agreements, please see “Intellectual Property – Licenses and Collaborations.” A second patent family directed to injectable nanoparticle neurosteroid formulations consists of one granted United States patent and one pending United States application. The 20-year term of this patent family runs through 2036, absent any available patent term adjustments. We have

approximately two patent families consisting of two pending United States provisional applications directed to additional formulations of ganaxolone.

Process for Manufacturing Ganaxolone. Our patent portfolio contains patents issued in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States covering our synthetic process for manufacturing ganaxolone. The 20-year term for patents in this family runs through 2030, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions. The European patent has been validated in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland.

Intravenous Ganaxolone Formulations. We own approximately four patent families directed to our IV ganaxolone formulations that we are developing for the treatment of SE and certain other disorders. One of the patent families includes pending applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, South Africa, and the United States that claim certain injectable ganaxolone formulations containing sulfobutyl ether-beta-cyclodextrin and certain methods of use of the formulations, including for the treatment of SE. The 20-year term for this patent family runs through to 2036, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions. A second patent family currently includes one issued United States patent with claims directed to certain therapeutic regimens for the treatment of SE using IV ganaxolone, and an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that is directed to certain therapeutic regimens for the treatment of SE using IV ganaxolone. The 20-year term for patents based on this international application will run through 2040, absent any available patent term adjustments. We intend to file national phase applications in various foreign jurisdictions based on this PCT application before applicable deadlines. A third patent family currently consists of a pending international application filed under the PCT that is directed to certain therapeutic uses of IV ganaxolone. We intend to file national phase applications in various foreign jurisdictions based on the PCT application before applicable deadlines. The 20-year term for patents based on this international application will run through 2041, absent any applicable available patent term adjustments. A fourth patent family currently consists of a pending United States provisional application directed to certain therapeutic uses of SE. We intend to file an international patent application under the PCT before the applicable deadline.

Additional Therapeutic Uses. We own approximately four patent families directed to certain therapeutic uses of ganaxolone, including for treating genetic epilepsy disorders, such as, CDD and PCDH19-Related Epilepsy (PCDH19-RE), TSC, and depressive disorders. One of the patent families includes pending applications filed in Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States that claim certain methods of treating epileptic disorders. The 20-year term for patents in this family runs through 2038, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions. A second patent family currently includes one pending international patent application filed under the PCT that claims certain methods of treating TSC. We intend to file national phase applications in various foreign jurisdictions based on this PCT application before applicable deadlines. The 20-year term for patents based on this family run through 2040, absent any available patent term adjustments or extensions. A third family currently comprises one pending United States provisional application directed to certain therapeutic regimens for certain disorders using ganaxolone. We intend to file an international patent application under the PCT before the applicable deadline.

We have also licensed from Ovid certain patents that are directed to certain therapeutic uses of ganaxolone for the treatment of CDD. The licensed patent family includes a granted U.S. patent and a pending application in Europe. The 20-year term for patents based on this international application will run through 2037, absent an available patent term adjustments.

We also own two patent families directed to certain methods of treating depressive disorders. One patent family consists of three granted United States patents directed to certain methods of using ganaxolone for treating postpartum depression and related disorders. The 20-year patent term of this family runs through 2037, absent any available patent term adjustments. A second patent family currently includes one allowed United States patent directed to claims certain methods of using ganaxolone for treating postpartum depression using ganaxolone. The 20-year term of this family runs through 2039, absent any available patent term extensions. Our fifth patent family currently comprises one pending international patent application filed under the PCT that is directed to certain new therapeutic regimens for treating epileptic disorders. We intend to file national phase applications in various foreign jurisdictions based on the PCT

application before applicable deadlines. The 20-year term for patents based on this international application will run through 2041, absent any applicable available patent term adjustments.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain a competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, through confidentiality agreements with our employees, collaborators, contractors and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and some of our collaborators. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of agreements or clauses requiring invention assignment, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party.

General Considerations

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify a proprietary position for our ganaxolone synthesis and formulations will depend upon our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims once granted. Our commercial success will depend in part upon not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent could require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, obtain licenses, or cease certain activities. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for patent term extension, which provides patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act) permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions, where available, on patents covering those products in the respective jurisdictions.

Many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and academic institutions are competing with us in the field of neuropsychiatric disorders and filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business. Even if a particular third-party patent is identified as possibly being relevant to our product candidates or technology, we may conclude upon a thorough analysis, that we do not infringe upon the patent or that the patent is invalid. If the third-party patent owner disagrees with our conclusion and we continue with the business activity in question, we may be subject to patent litigation. Alternatively, we might decide to initiate litigation in an attempt to have a court declare the third-party patent invalid or non-infringed by our activity. In either scenario, patent litigation typically is costly and time-consuming, and the outcome can be favorable or unfavorable.

Licenses and Collaborations

Orion

On July 30, 2021, we entered into a collaboration agreement (Orion Collaboration Agreement) with Orion Corporation (Orion), whereby Orion received exclusive rights to commercialize the oral and IV dose formulations of ganaxolone in the European Economic Area, United Kingdom and Switzerland in multiple seizure disorders, including CDD, TSC and RSE. Under the agreement, we received a €25 million ($29.6 million) upfront fee and are eligible to receive up to an additional €97 million in R&D reimbursement and cash milestone payments based on specific clinical and commercial achievements, as well as tiered royalty payments based on net sales ranging from the low double digits to the high teens for the oral programs and the low double-digits to the low twenties for the IV programs. In connection with the upfront fee, we agreed to provide Orion with the results of an ongoing genotoxicity study on the M2 metabolite of ganaxolone, a “Combined Micronucleus & Comet study in vivo.” In the event that the results of such study were positive, based on the criteria set forth in the study’s protocol, Orion would have had the right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement within ninety (90) days after its receipt of the final report of such study, in which case we

would have been required to refund Orion seventy-five percent (75%) of the upfront fee. In February 2022, the verified draft study report showed that no genotoxicity was found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. As such, but subject to confirmation of such results in the final study report expected by the end of the second quarter of 2022, we will not be required to refund Orion any of the upfront fee and Orion will not have a right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement as a result of the study’s findings.

CyDex

In March 2017, we entered into a License Agreement and a Supply Agreement with CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CyDex).  Under the terms of the License Agreement, CyDex granted us an exclusive license to use CyDex’s sulfobutylether beta-cyclodextrin, or Captisol®, drug formulation system and related intellectual property in connection with the development and commercialization of ganaxolone in any and all therapeutic uses in humans, with some exceptions.

As consideration for this license, we paid an upfront fee and are required to make additional payments in the future upon achievement of various specified clinical and regulatory milestones.  We will also be required to pay royalties to CyDex on sales of ganaxolone, if successfully developed, in the low-to-mid single digits based on levels of annual net sales. As of March 24, 2022, we have achieved one milestone under the License Agreement, which occurred and was paid in the first quarter of 2021. Certain patents relating to Captisol®, including some that were licensed to us by CyDex, have expired, while other patents that are licensed to us remain in force.

Under the terms of the Supply Agreement, we are required to purchase all of our requirements for Captisol with respect to ganaxolone from CyDex, and CyDex is required to supply us with Captisol for such purposes, subject to certain limitations.

NovaMedica

In December 2012, we entered into a Technology Transfer Agreement (Transfer Agreement) with DRI. Pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, in exchange for a payment of $100,000, we assigned to DRI certain patents and patents applications in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan (Covered Territory), and granted to DRI an exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable and assignable license under our know-how to develop and commercialize ganaxolone and other products that would infringe our patent rights or use our know-how (Covered Products) in the Covered Territory, in the field of uses for any human or animal disease or condition excluding the treatment of unpleasant sensory or emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage (Field). DRI subsequently transferred all of its rights and obligations under the Transfer Agreement to NovaMedica. Under the terms of the Transfer Agreement, NovaMedica, or its permitted transferees or assignees, has the exclusive right within the Covered Territory to manufacture the Covered Products solely for development and commercialization in the Covered Territory in the Field. Until the first commercial sale of a Covered Product within the Covered Territory, NovaMedica will have the right to purchase supplies of the Covered Product from us on a cost-plus basis, subject to certain limitations. The Transfer Agreement also provides that we will enter into the Supply Agreement with NovaMedica to supply ganaxolone and/or Covered Product for development in the Covered Territory at a future date.

In June 2013, we entered into a Clinical Development and Collaboration Agreement (Collaboration Agreement) with NovaMedica, pursuant to which we agreed to assist NovaMedica in the development and commercialization of Covered Products in the Covered Territory in the Field. The Collaboration Agreement requires the formation of committees consisting of our representatives and NovaMedica representatives to oversee the general development, day-to-day development work and commercialization of Covered Products in the Field in the Covered Territory. NovaMedica is required to reimburse us for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by us in providing this assistance, except for expenses incurred in our participation on the joint committees. Pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement and the Transfer Agreement, we have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to include sites in the Russian Federation in our clinical trial programs for the first indications of the Covered Products at our sole expense. Under the Transfer Agreement, at least 36 months prior to the first commercial sale of a product candidate in the Covered

Territory, the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith a supply agreement pursuant to which we or a third party contract manufacturer authorized by us to manufacture and supply the Covered Products, will supply needed quantities of Covered Product to NovaMedica solely for commercialization of Covered Products in the Covered Territory, on commercially fair and reasonable terms. Such purchases will be made on a cost-plus basis. The Collaboration Agreement expires on the earlier of three years following the first commercial sale of a product candidate in the Covered Territory or the termination of the Transfer Agreement. NovaMedica also has the right to terminate the Collaboration Agreement at any time at its convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice.

Purdue Neuroscience Company (Purdue)

In September 2004, we entered into a license agreement with Purdue, which was amended and restated in May 2008, that granted us exclusive rights to certain know-how and technology relating to ganaxolone, excluding the field of treatment of unpleasant sensory or emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage. The agreement contains a right by us to sublicense, subject to prior written approval by Purdue, and we have sublicensed our licensed rights to NovaMedica for the Covered Territory. We are obligated to pay royalties as a percentage in the range of high single digits up to 10% of net product sales for direct licensed products, such as ganaxolone. The obligation to pay royalties expires, on a country-by-country basis, ten years from the first commercial sale of a licensed product in each country. Upon commercialization, we estimate the in-licensed technology would result in us paying royalties to Purdue in the low single digits as a percentage of sales. Other payment obligations may be triggered if we successfully partner our product candidates with third parties. In addition, the agreement also requires that we pay Purdue a percentage in the mid-single digits of the non-royalty consideration that we receive from a sublicensee and a percentage in the twenties of milestone payments received from sublicensees for indications other than seizure disorders and vascular migraine headaches not associated with mood disorders. Under the license agreement, we are committed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize at least one licensed product.

Ovid License

In March 2022, we entered into an exclusive patent license agreement (License Agreement) with Ovid Therapeutics Inc. (Ovid). Under the License Agreement, we have an exclusive, non-transferable (except as provided in the License Agreement), royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain of Ovid’s patent(s) and patent applications to develop, make, have made, commercialize, promote, distribute, sell, offer for sale and import, ganaxolone, including any analogues or derivatives, including its salts, and pharmaceutical formulations of the foregoing (Licensed Products), in the U.S., the member states of the EU, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland (Territory) for the treatment of CDD in humans (Field). Under the License Agreement, we have the sole right and responsibility for, and control over, all development, manufacturing, and commercialization activities, including all regulatory activities, with respect to the Licensed Products in the Field in the Territory. In addition, all regulatory approvals and related filings with respect to the Licensed Products in the Field in the Territory will be in the name of, and be owned solely by, us. We are required, at Ovid’s option exercisable in accordance with the License Agreement, to (i) pay to Ovid the sum of $1.5 million in cash; or (ii) issue to Ovid 123,255 shares of our common stock, which option to obtain shares of our common stock is exercisable within the five-business day period following the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The License Agreement also provides for payment of royalties by us to Ovid in the low single digits on net sales by us, our affiliates and sublicensees, of Licensed Products in the Field in the Territory. Such royalties are subject to reduction in the event of generic competition in accordance with the License Agreement. We may terminate the License Agreement at any time without cause on thirty days’ prior written notice. Either party may terminate the License Agreement for the other party’s material breach or insolvency subject to certain cure periods. Also, Ovid has the right to terminate the License Agreement if there has not been a first commercial sale of any Licensed Products in the Field in the Territory on or before June 30, 2025. In the event of termination, all licenses granted under the License Agreement will terminate.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we

face competition from both large and small pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specifically from companies that treat rare seizure disorders.

There are a variety of available therapies marketed for rare seizure disorders. In many cases, these products are administered in combination to enhance efficacy or to reduce side effects. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, some are in clinical development and not yet approved, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are well established therapies or products and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payers. Insurers and other third-party payers may also encourage the use of generic products. More established companies have a competitive advantage over us due to their greater size, cash flows, established commercial infrastructure, clinician relationships and institutional experience. Compared to us, many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources with longer histories of marketed products.

Our competitors may also develop drugs that are safer, more effective, more widely used and less costly than ours, and may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. These appreciable advantages could render ganaxolone obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of ganaxolone’s development and commercialization.

We primarily compete with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are developing therapies or marketing drugs to treat indications that we are targeting.

SE

SE patients generally are treated with benzodiazepines as first-line treatment. When benzodiazepines are not effective the patients are in ESE and are treated with various second-line IV AEDs, such as levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, lacosamide, or valproate. In 2019, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial (Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial; ESETT) was conducted by a group of academic investigators and was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of second-line IV AEDs in ESE. In this trial, the efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate was evaluated in convulsive ESE patients. It was reported that levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate were effective at stopping SE in 47%, 45%, and 46% of the patients, respectively. When second-line AEDs are not effective, RSE patients are generally placed in a medically-induced coma under IV anesthesia in an attempt to stop the seizures and prevent further damage to the brain and death. Patients on third-line IV anesthesia are at higher risk for anesthesia-associated morbidities, such as infection, and have 2.9 times greater mortality rate. In addition, patients on IV anesthetics for SE treatment have increased lengths of stays in the hospital and ICU resulting in increased healthcare utilization. To our knowledge, there are no treatments indicated for RSE, and there are no other companies currently conducting clinical trials in SE patients.

CDD and TSC

There are no drugs other than our product ZTALMY approved specifically for the treatment of seizures associated with CDD, and two drugs approved for the treatment of seizures associated with TSC: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s Afinitor DISPERZ® (everolimus tablets for oral suspension) and Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s EPIDIOLEX® (cannabidiol). CDD and TSC patients are typically prescribed drugs approved for epileptic seizures, which often fail to control seizures in these patient populations. To our knowledge, there is only one other company with a drug in active development for the treatment of CDD (UCB S.A’s, FINTEPLA® Fenfluramine Hydrochloride).

Manufacturing

Manufacturing of drugs and product candidates, including ganaxolone, must comply with FDA current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) regulations. Ganaxolone is a synthetic small molecule made through a series of organic chemistry steps starting with commercially available organic chemical raw materials. We conduct manufacturing activities under individual purchase orders with independent contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) to supply our clinical trials. We are in the process of negotiating a commercial supply agreement for ganaxolone’s API with our current manufacturer and are finalizing a commercial supply agreement with our current supplier of finished bulk drug product. We have an internal quality program and have qualified and signed quality agreements with our major CMOs.

We conduct periodic quality audits of their facilities. We believe that our existing suppliers of ganaxolone’s active pharmaceutical ingredient and finished product will be capable of providing sufficient quantities of each to meet our clinical trial supply needs. We also believe our current API manufacturer will be able to meet our commercial needs for ZTALMY. CMOs may be used in the future for clinical supplies and commercial manufacturing.

Ganaxolone Formulations

The therapeutic possibilities of ganaxolone have been understood for some time; however, because ganaxolone is a high-dose water insoluble compound, developing a formulation that could provide consistent drug exposure and could be manufactured at a commercially feasible cost had proven challenging. We believe our patented nanoparticulate formulation and novel manufacturing process for ganaxolone can successfully address the cost of manufacturing and pharmacokinetic challenges that previously encumbered the clinical and commercial feasibility of ganaxolone.

Ganaxolone is currently formulated for oral and IV administration. In addition, we are evaluating various formulation approaches to improve ganaxolone’s oral drug properties.

Commercial Operations

In anticipation of FDA approval for ZTALMY, we have built a commercial operations infrastructure, including, marketing infrastructure, market access capabilities, and we are building our sales field force and expect it to be fully in place by the end of the second quarter 2022, to reach high prescribing neurologist, critical care, epilepsy specialists and other target physician populations in the United States. ZTALMY is expected to be regulated by the DEA as a controlled substance under the CSA. We expect this scheduling process to take approximately 90 days. We plan to commercially launch ZTALMY after this scheduling process is completed. We believe a focused sales and marketing organization could be leveraged to market ganaxolone across multiple epilepsy indications. We believe that there could also be significant market opportunities for ganaxolone in epilepsy and other neurological and psychiatric conditions outside of the United States. In order to capitalize on such opportunities, we plan to seek collaborations with pharmaceutical companies that have greater reach and resources by virtue of their size and experience in the field.

​

Government Regulation

As a pharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) and its implementing regulations set forth, among other things, requirements for the research, testing, development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, advertising and promotion of our products. Although the discussion below focuses on regulation in the United States, we anticipate seeking approval for, and marketing of, our product candidates in other countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. In addition, some significant aspects of regulation in the European Union (EU) are addressed in a centralized way through the European Medicines Agency (EMA), but country-specific regulation also remains in many essential respects. The process of obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations will require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources in order to be successful.

United States Government Regulation

The FDA is the main agency that regulates pharmaceuticals in the United States, and its regulatory authority is based in the FDC Act. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes. A failure to comply with applicable requirements during the product development, approval, or post-approval periods may lead to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an institutional review board (IRB) of a hold on clinical trials, refusal to approve pending marketing applications or supplements, withdrawal of approval, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a new drug may be marketed in the United States generally include:

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Clinical Trials

An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product candidate to humans. A 30-day waiting period after the initial submission of an IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has not raised concerns or questions about the proposed clinical testing and placed the IND on clinical hold within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may initiate. If an IND has been placed on clinical hold, the sponsor must resolve the FDA’s outstanding concerns or questions before clinical trials can begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP, which are requirements meant to protect the rights and health of subjects and to assure the quality, reliability and integrity of data collected in clinical trials. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols that detail, among other things, the subject inclusion and exclusion criteria, the dosing regimen, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on United States subjects and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The informed written consent of each participating subject is required, and an IRB at each site where the trial is conducted must approve the trial. The IRB must monitor the trial until completed. There are also requirements governing the registration of ongoing clinical trials and the reporting of clinical trial results to public registries.

The clinical investigation of an investigational product candidate is generally divided into three phases. Although the phases are usually conducted sequentially, they may overlap or be combined. The three phases of an investigation are as follows:

Clinical trials may not be completed successfully within a specified period of time, if at all. The decision to terminate development of an investigational product candidate may be made by either a health authority, such as the FDA, or IRB/ethics committees, or by a company for various reasons. The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial, which is referred to as a clinical hold, at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. In some cases, clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee or data safety monitoring board. Such a group provides recommendations to the sponsor for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points, based on limited access to data from the ongoing trial. The suspension or termination of development can occur during any phase of clinical trials if it is determined that the participants or subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. In addition, there are requirements for the registration of ongoing clinical trials of product candidates on public registries and the disclosure of certain clinical trial results and other trial information after completion.

A sponsor may be able to request a special protocol assessment (SPA) the purpose of which is to reach agreement with the FDA on the design and size of certain clinical trials or animal studies that will adequately address scientific and/or regulatory requirements that could support marketing approval. A sponsor may make a specific request for an SPA and provide information regarding the design and size of the proposed clinical trial. An SPA request must be

made before the proposed trial begins, and all open issues must be resolved before the trial begins. If a written agreement is reached, it will be documented and made part of the regulatory record. The agreement will be binding on the FDA and may not be changed by the sponsor or the FDA after the trial begins except with the written agreement of the sponsor and the FDA or if the FDA determines that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the product candidate was identified after the testing began. An SPA is not binding if new circumstances arise, and there is no guarantee that a trial will ultimately be adequate to support an approval even if the trial is subject to an SPA.

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, detailed investigational product candidate information is submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA to request market approval for the product in specified indications.

New Drug Applications

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing the safety and effectiveness of the product candidate for the proposed indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational product candidate to the satisfaction of the FDA.

In most cases, the NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee; there may be some instances in which the user fee is waived. The FDA will initially review the NDA for completeness before it accepts the NDA for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. Applications for standard review product candidates are reviewed within ten months of FDA’s acceptance for filing. An accelerated six-month review can be given to applications that meet certain criteria. The FDA can extend the review period by three months, or potentially longer, to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information provided in the initial submission. The FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. FDA Advisory Committee meetings are often held for New Chemical Entities (NCEs), novel indications, or for applications that otherwise present scientific, technical, or policy questions on which the agency believes it would benefit from the perspectives of outside experts. An advisory committee meeting includes a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, who review, evaluate and make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. In addition, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy

(REMS) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (ETASU). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and prior FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Compounds that have a potential for dependence and abuse are scheduled as controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and similar state and foreign laws. In the United States, for new chemical entities under development for therapeutic use, FDA and HHS complete an analysis and recommendation about whether a drug should be scheduled as a controlled substance, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) takes the analysis and recommendation into account in the scheduling process. In the case of a new drug approved by the FDA, if scheduling is warranted then the DEA issues an interim final rule controlling the drug 90 days after receipt of the FDA/HHS analysis and recommendation or notice of the FDA approval of the drug, whichever is later. Drugs that are scheduled as controlled substances are subject to stringent regulatory requirements, including requirements for registering manufacturing and distribution facilities, security controls and employee screening, recordkeeping, reporting, product labeling and packaging, import and export. There are five federal schedules for controlled substances, known as Schedule I, II, III, IV and V. The regulatory requirements that apply to a drug vary depending on the particular controlled substance schedule into which a drug is placed, based on consideration of a number of factors, including its potential for dependence and abuse. Schedules I and II contain the most stringent restrictions and requirements, and Schedule V the least. For all controlled substances, there are potential criminal and civil penalties that apply for the failure to meet applicable legal requirements, and healthcare professionals must have a DEA license in order to handle, prescribe, or dispense controlled substances.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

In the United States, FDA may grant breakthrough therapy designation to a drug candidate if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may offer substantial improvement on a clinically significant endpoint over existing options for patients with a serious condition. Features of breakthrough therapy designation include intensive guidance to ensure that the design of clinical trials are as efficient as practicable, increased involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff and where appropriate, a cross-disciplinary project lead assigned to the FDA review team, and rolling review of the NDA. Breakthrough designation can be requested with the IND or ideally no later than the end-of-Phase 2 meeting.

Fast Track Designation

Fast Track is a designation by the FDA of an investigational drug that is intended to treat a serious condition and for which nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need. The request for fast track designation can be initiated with the IND or ideally no later than the pre-NDA/BLA meeting. Features of fast track designation include more frequent meetings and interactions with FDA to expedite development and review, including to discuss the drug’s development plan and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support drug approval, and a rolling review of the NDA/BLA.

Priority Review

Based on results of the Phase 3 clinical trials submitted in an NDA, upon the request of an applicant, a priority review designation may be granted to a product by the FDA, which sets the target date for FDA action on the application

at six months from FDA acceptance for filing. Priority review may be granted where a product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of the serious condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the standard FDA review period is ten months from FDA acceptance for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

After regulatory approval of a drug is obtained, a sponsor is required to comply with a number of post-approval requirements. For example, as a condition of approval of an NDA, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. In addition, as a holder of an approved NDA, a sponsor is required to report adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information, submit annual reports and comply with advertising and promotional labeling requirements.

Manufacturing must continue to conform to cGMP after approval, and the FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP. Compliance with cGMP includes adhering to requirements relating to organization and training of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, quality control and quality assurance, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, and records and reports. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose manufacturing documentation requirements. Accordingly, sponsors must continue to expend time, money and effort to maintain quality control and compliance with cGMP. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of ganaxolone. The FDA also conducts regular, periodic visits to re-inspect equipment, facilities, and processes following the initial approval of a product. Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may lead to the FDA taking enforcement actions or seeking sanctions, including fines, issuance of warning letters, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, seizure or recall of products, and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party manufacturers, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party manufacturers will consistently comply with cGMP and other applicable FDA regulatory requirements.

The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses—that is, uses not approved by the FDA and therefore not described in the drug’s labeling—because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. In general, a manufacturer may not promote a drug for off-label use, but may engage in non-promotional, balanced communication regarding off-label use under specified conditions. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS OIG), as well as state authorities. Enforcement action could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

NDA holders must comply with other regulatory requirements, including submitting annual reports, reporting information about adverse drug experiences, and maintaining certain records.

Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings, contraindications, or limitations of use, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDC Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be referenced by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or 505(b)(2) application. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients, generally in the same strengths and dosage form, as a referenced listed drug (RLD) and has been shown through PK testing to be bioequivalent to the RLD. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are generally not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical studies or clinical trials to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. 505(b)(2) applications provide for marketing of a drug product that may have the same active ingredients as the reference drug and contains full safety and effectiveness data, but at least some of this information comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and to which the applicant does not have a right of reference. Drugs approved through an ANDA are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the RLD, depending on applicable state laws.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding a patented method of use or use covered by regulatory exclusivity. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents by filing a certification that the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the earliest of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the reference product has expired.

Marketing Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, are associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change. An ANDA may be submitted one year

before five-year marketing exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. In this case, the 30-month stay, if applicable, runs from the end of the five-year marketing exclusivity period.

In the European Economic Area (EEA), which is comprised of twenty-seven Member States of the EU plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after a related Marketing Authorization (MA) has been granted. MA for medicinal products can be obtained through several different procedures. These procedures include a centralized, mutual recognition procedure, decentralized procedure, or national procedure (if marketing authorization is sought for a single EU Member State). The centralized procedure allows a company to submit a single application to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). If a related positive opinion is provided by the EMA, the European Commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that is valid in all twenty-seven EU Member States and three of the four European Free Trade Association countries (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein and Norway) all of whom are part of the EEA.

The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance that is not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which a grant of centralized marketing authorization is in the interest of patients at EU level within the EU.

In the EU, a medicinal product containing a new active substance, which has never been approved in a medicinal product in the EU before, as well as in certain other circumstances, is entitled to eight years of data exclusivity and ten years of market exclusivity following a grant of MA. During the first eight years, no generic company may refer to the data used by the innovator to obtain a marketing authorization. After eight years, generics may reference the innovator data, but generic medicinal products may only be placed on the market after a total of ten years. Approval of a new indication will not result in a separate additional period of regulatory data protection and market exclusivity. If, however, during the first eight years after initial marketing authorization, a new indication is approved which is considered by the competent authorities to be of significant clinical benefit in comparison to existing therapies, this would result in one additional year of market exclusivity, in addition to the initial eight plus two years. Such significant clinical benefit would generally have to be supported by comparative clinical trials.

Orphan Drug Designation

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or, if the disease or condition affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug would be recovered from sales in the United States. In the EU, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products assesses applications for orphan designations after which the European Commission may grant orphan drug designation. In the EU, orphan designation is granted if it is established that a medicinal product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU. In addition, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life- threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EU would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug. In order to obtain orphan designation in the EU, it must in addition be established that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in the EU or if such method exists, that the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

In the United States, orphan drug designation may confer eligibility for financial incentives, such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax credits for certain research and user fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to seven years of market exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application for the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition.

In the EU, orphan drug designation may be granted to drugs that can be used to treat life-threatening diseases or chronically debilitating conditions with an incidence of no more than five in 10,000 people or, for economic reasons, would be unlikely to be developed without incentives. Orphan drug designation also entitles an applicant for MA to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, and protocol assistance, a type of scientific advice specific for designated orphan medicinal products. Following a grant of MA, the product is entitled to ten years of exclusivity if the product continues to be designated as an orphan medical product upon grant of the marketing authorization. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. During the orphan exclusivity period, the competent authorities in the EU may not accept a marketing authorization application for a similar medicinal product for the same therapeutic indication. However, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product (i.e., a medicinal product with an identical active substance, or an active substance with the same principal molecular structural features and which acts via the same mechanism) with the same orphan indication during the ten-year period with the consent of the marketing authorization holder for the original orphan medicinal product or if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities. Marketing authorization may also be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if this latter product is demonstrated to be safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product.

In the EU, if pediatric studies are conducted in accordance with a pediatric investigation plan, which was previously agreed upon with the European Medicines Agency, it may be possible to obtain an extension of orphan market exclusivity of two years, resulting in a total orphan market exclusivity period of twelve years.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submission of an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not change the scientific/medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five year patent extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase—the time between an effective IND and NDA submission—and all of the review phase—the time between NDA submission and approval, up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years.

Many other countries also provide for patent term extensions or similar extensions of patent protection for pharmaceutical products. For example, in Japan, it may be possible to extend the patent term for up to five years and in the EU, it may be possible to obtain a supplementary protection certificate that would effectively extend patent protection for up to five years.

In the EU, if pediatric studies are conducted in accordance with a pediatric investigation plan, which was previously agreed upon with the EMA, it may be possible to obtain an extension of a supplementary protection certificate of up to six months. This pediatric extension would not be available if the product is an orphan medicinal product. The extension would also not be available if one additional year of market exclusivity was granted for a new pediatric indication on the basis of the results of pediatric studies conducted in compliance with an agreed pediatric investigation plan.

Controlled Substances

The federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) and its implementing regulations establish a “closed system” of regulations for controlled substances. The CSA imposes registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting, storage, manufacturing, distribution, importation and other requirements under the oversight of the DEA. The DEA is the federal agency responsible for regulating controlled substances, and requires those individuals or entities that manufacture, import, export, distribute, research, or dispense controlled substances to comply with the regulatory requirements in order to prevent the diversion of controlled substances to illicit channels of commerce.

The DEA categorizes controlled substances into one of five schedules — Schedule I, II, III, IV or V — with varying qualifications for listing in each schedule. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Pharmaceutical products having a currently accepted medical use that are otherwise approved for marketing may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V substances, with Schedule II substances presenting the highest potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence, and Schedule V substances presenting the lowest relative potential for abuse and dependence.

Facilities that manufacture, distribute, import or export any controlled substance must register annually with the DEA. The DEA registration is specific to the particular location, activity(ies) and controlled substance schedule(s). For example, separate registrations are required for importation and manufacturing activities, and each registration authorizes which schedules of controlled substances the registrant may handle. However, certain coincident activities are permitted without obtaining a separate DEA registration, such as distribution of controlled substances by the manufacturer that produces them.

The DEA inspects all manufacturing facilities to review security, recordkeeping, reporting and handling prior to issuing a controlled substance registration. The specific security requirements vary by the type of business activity and the schedule and quantity of controlled substances handled. The most stringent requirements apply to manufacturers of Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures commonly include background checks on employees and physical control of controlled substances through storage in approved vaults, safes and cages, and thorough use of alarm systems and surveillance cameras. Registrants must also report any controlled substance thefts or significant losses, and must comply with CSA and DEA regulatory requirements to destroy or dispose of controlled substances.

The states also maintain separate controlled substance laws and regulations, including licensing, recordkeeping, security, distribution, and dispensing requirements. State Authorities, including Boards of Pharmacy, regulate use of controlled substances in each state. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in the loss or diversion of controlled substances, can result in enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal prosecution.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits any United States individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring such companies to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

European and Other International Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Some countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a request for a clinical trial authorization (CTA) much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a request for a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA request is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. The conduct of a clinical trial in the EU must comply with regulatory requirements based on the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (Clinical Trials Directive), the details of which may vary per EU Member State. On January 31, 2022, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014

(Clinical Trials Regulation) came into effect. The Clinical Trials Regulation applies to clinical trials in all countries of the European Economic Area (EEA, i.e. the EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). The Clinical Trials Regulation allows investigators to start and conduct a clinical trial in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive during a transitional period of one year after the application date (i.e. January 31, 2022). The transition period for the trials ongoing at the moment of applicability will be a maximum of 3 years after the date of application of the Clinical Trials Regulation. Clinical trials authorized under the current Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023 can continue to be conducted under the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. An application to transition ongoing trials from the current Clinical Trials Directive to the new Clinical Trials Regulation will need to be submitted and authorized in time before the end of the transitional period. The new Clinical Trials Regulation is intended to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EEA. The main characteristics of the regulation include: (i) a streamlined application procedure through a single entry point known as the “EU portal”; (ii) a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and (iii) a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts.

In addition, when conducting a clinical trial in the EU, the processing of personal data, including pseudonymized data, would have to comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR imposes strict obligations on the processing of personal data, including relating to the transfer of personal data to third countries such as the US. The competent authorities of the EU Member States may impose significant financial penalties in the event of violation of the GDPR.

To obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a new drug under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application (MAA). MAAs can be submitted to the EMA through a centralized procedure, resulting in one marketing authorization valid throughout the EU (27 EU Member States as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain products, such as orphan medicinal products or product with a new active substance for certain therapeutic indications and is optional for certain other products, such as products that contain a new active substance that has not previously been approved in a medicinal product in the EU. Alternative MAA routes in the EU are the decentralized procedure in which it is possible to request marketing authorization in a selection of various EU Member States, the national procedure in which a marketing authorization is requested for one EU Member State only or the mutual recognition procedure in which marketing authorization in one or more EU Member States is requested on the basis of a prior marketing authorization in another EU Member State.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Internationally, clinical trials are generally required to be conducted in accordance with GCP, applicable regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction and the medical ethics principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Small Medium Enterprise (SME) designation

In the EU, small medium enterprise designation (SME) can be granted to non-subsidiary, independent firms which employ fewer than 250 employees to promote innovation and the development of new medicinal products by smaller companies. The criteria for designation are dependent on staff headcount, either turnover or balance sheet total and the ownership structure, including any partnership or linkage.  Benefits of SME designation include direct assistance on regulatory aspects of the pharmaceutical legislation, help navigating the array of services available, fee exemptions and reductions for pre- and post-authorization regulatory procedures, assistance with translations of product information into all official EU languages, guidance on clinical data publication and a free redaction tool license, liaison with academic investigators in pediatric-medicine research through the European Network of Pediatric Research at the EMA and workshops and training sessions. In 2020, we renewed our SME designation in the EU.

Compliance

During all phases of development (pre- and post-marketing), failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s imposition of a

clinical hold on trials, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, product detention or refusal to permit the import or export of products, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Accelerated Review (EU)

Under the Centralized Procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA is 210 days (excluding “clock stops,” when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, which should be justified on a case-by-case basis. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

Healthcare Reform

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, (Affordable Care Act) has substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act has impacted pre-existing government healthcare programs and resulted in the development of new programs. For example, the Affordable Care Act provides for Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to Medicare physician quality reporting system and feedback program.

Among the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act have been subject to judicial challenges as well as efforts to modify them or to alter their interpretation and implementation. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act), enacted on December 22, 2017, eliminated the tax-based shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” effective January 1, 2019. Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes, and judicial challenges related to the Affordable Care Act remain possible. It is unclear how the Affordable Care Act and its implementation, as well as efforts to modify the Affordable Care Act, its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, will affect our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of an amount greater than $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reductions to several government programs. These reductions include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to healthcare providers of, on average, 2.0% per fiscal year, starting in 2013 and continuing through 2030 (with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022). The law provides for 1% Medicare sequestration in the second quarter of 2022 and allows the full 2% sequestration thereafter until 2030. To offset the temporary suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2030, the sequestration will be 2.25% for the first half of the year, and 3% in the second half of the year. Additionally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several categories of healthcare providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These 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 the Affordable Care Act and other healthcare reform measures will result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved 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. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. In addition, it is possible that there will be further state and federal healthcare reform measures adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that state and federal governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any drug products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payers. Third-party payers include government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the drug product. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Ganaxolone may not be considered by payers to be medically necessary or cost-effective for particular diseases or conditions. A payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

In addition, Medicare Part D and further legislation may limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as the product candidates that we are developing. While government payment pursuant to Medicare Part D for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for any products for which we receive marketing approval, to obtain payments under this program, we would be required to sell products to Medicare recipients through prescription drug plans operating pursuant to this legislation. These plans will likely negotiate discounted prices for our products. Federal, state and local governments in the United States continue to consider legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become more intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. The EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. We may face competition for ganaxolone from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payers fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time.

Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration (anything of value), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in

return either for the referral of an individual for, or for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common business arrangements and activities from prosecution or regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not fit squarely within an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from AKS liability. Moreover, there are no safe harbors for many common practices, such as educational and research grants, charitable donations, product support and patient assistance programs. The regulatory safe harbors also are subject to regulatory revision and interpretation by a number of government agencies. For example, in November 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized a previously abandoned proposal to amend the discount safe harbor regulation of the AKS in a purported effort to create incentives to manufacturers to lower their list prices, and to lower federal program beneficiary out-of-pocket costs. The rule, which is currently slated to take full effect January 1, 2023, revises the AKS discount safe harbor to exclude manufacturer rebates to Medicare Part D plans, either directly or through PBMs, creates a new safe harbor for point-of-sale price reductions that are set in advance and are available to the beneficiary at the point-of-sale, and creates a new safe harbor for service fees paid by manufacturers to PBMs for services rendered to the manufacturer. The effective date of the rule has been delayed by the Biden Administration amid legal challenges. It is unclear whether the rule will be further delayed, rewritten, or even allowed to go into effect, and if so, what the effect of the rule will be on negotiations of coverage for our products with Medicare Part D plans, or whether the rule will affect our coverage arrangements with commercial insurers. It is also unclear whether the rule will have the intended effect of reducing net prices and beneficiary out-of-pocket costs without also increasing Medicare Part D premiums, which may impact the willingness of Part D plans to cover our products and the price concessions or other terms the plans or their PBMs may seek from us. Liability under the AKS may be established without proving actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act (discussed below). Violations of the AKS are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, damages, civil monetary penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs.

The federal civil False Claims Act (FCA) prohibits any person from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Such private individuals may share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in recovery or settlement. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. FCA liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and significant mandatory penalties per false or fraudulent claim or statement for violations, as well as exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies also are subject to other federal false claims laws, including, among others, federal criminal healthcare fraud and false statement statutes that extend to non-government health benefit programs.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (collectively, HIPAA) imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments Program, requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS, information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report information regarding payments and transfers of value provided to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives.

Also, many states have analogous fraud and abuse statutes or regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Other state laws require posting of information relating to clinical trials and their outcomes. Some states restrict the ability of manufacturers to offer co-pay support to patients for certain prescription drugs. Other states require identification or licensing of sales representatives.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA imposes privacy and security obligations on covered entity health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, as well as their “business associates”—certain persons or entities that create, receive, maintain, or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a specified service or performing a function on behalf of a covered entity. We may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA and other privacy and data security and consumer protection laws. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA, other than potentially with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly receive individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA, and subject to other civil and/or criminal penalties if we obtain, use, or disclose information in a manner not permitted by other privacy and data security and consumer protection laws. In addition, numerous other federal and state laws and regulations govern privacy and security, including state data breach notification laws, state health information and/or genetic privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)), many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Compliance with these laws is difficult, constantly evolving, time consuming, and requires a flexible privacy framework and substantial resources. Compliance efforts will likely be an increasing and substantial cost in the future. Federal regulators, state attorneys general, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been and will likely continue to be active in this space.

In California, the CCPA establishes certain requirements for data use and sharing transparency and creates new data privacy rights for consumers. These laws and regulations are evolving and subject to interpretation, and may impose limitations on our activities or otherwise adversely affect our business. Similarly, there are a number of legislative proposals in the EU, the United States, at both the federal and state level, as well as other jurisdictions that could impose new obligations or limitations in areas affecting our business. In addition, some countries are considering or have passed legislation implementing data protection requirements or requiring local storage and processing of data or similar requirements that could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services and research activities. These laws and regulations, as well as any associated claims, inquiries, or investigations or any other government actions may lead to unfavorable outcomes including increased compliance costs, delays or impediments in the development of new products, negative publicity, increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention, and remedies that harm our business, including fines or demands or orders that we modify or cease existing business practices.

The EU, EEA countries and other jurisdictions have adopted data protection laws and regulations, which impose significant compliance obligations. The GDPR is directly applicable in each EEA country. The GDPR imposes strict restrictions and obligations on companies’ ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data or otherwise process

personal data, especially if they process sensitive personal data (such as data concerning patient health), including significant fines for non-compliance with the GDPR. Implementation of the GDPR has influenced other jurisdictions to either amend or propose legislation to amend their existing data privacy and cybersecurity laws to resemble the requirements of GDPR.

In addition to the foregoing requirements, we have certain price reporting obligations to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds made available to states for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data that we report on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid Drug Rebate Programs. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug which, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any entity in the United States in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts and other price concessions, subject to certain exclusions. The Affordable Care Act made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective on April 1, 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program under the Affordable Care Act. On December 21, 2020, CMS issued a final regulation that modified existing Medicaid Drug Rebate Program regulations to permit reporting multiple best price figures with regard to value-based purchasing arrangements (beginning in 2022); provide definitions for “line extension,” “new formulation,” and related terms with the practical effect of expanding the scope of drugs considered to be line extensions (beginning in 2022); and revise manufacturer price and best price exclusions of manufacturer-sponsored patient benefit programs, specifically regarding inapplicability of such exclusions in the context of PBM “accumulator” programs (beginning in 2023). Our failure to comply with the aforementioned price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results. In addition, statutory and regulatory changes or other agency action regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program could negatively affect our financial results or expand our rebate liability. For example, Congress could enact legislation that would extend rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to all Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP utilization.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program also participate in the 340B program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The Affordable Care Act expanded the list of covered entities to include certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, but exempts “orphan drugs” from the ceiling price requirements for these covered entities. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount under the Affordable Care Act or other legislation or regulation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations if we successfully commercialize one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval.

HRSA issued a final regulation, effective January 1, 2019, regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities. HRSA also has implemented a ceiling price reporting requirement, pursuant to which manufacturers must report the 340B ceiling prices for their covered outpatient drugs to HRSA on a quarterly basis. HRSA then publishes those prices to 340B covered entities. Moreover, under a final regulation effective January 13, 2021, HRSA newly established an administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process for claims by covered entities that a manufacturer has engaged in overcharging, and by manufacturers that a covered entity violated the prohibitions against diversion or duplicate discounts. Such claims are to be resolved through an ADR panel of government officials rendering a decision that could be appealed only in federal court. An ADR proceeding could subject a manufacturer to onerous procedural requirements

and could result in additional liability. In addition, changes to legislation, regulations, or guidance could modify 340B program compliance or expand discount liability.

Federal law also requires that a company report average sales price information each quarter to CMS for certain categories of drugs that are payable under the Medicare Part B program. Manufacturers calculate the average sales price based on a statutorily defined formula as well as regulations and interpretations of the statute by CMS. CMS uses these submissions to determine payment rates for drugs under Medicare Part B. Starting in 2023, manufacturers must pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologics, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages, for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of 10 percent of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. Manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount. Congress further could enact a Medicare Part B inflation rebate, under which manufacturers would owe additional rebates if the average sales price of a drug were to increase faster than the pace of inflation.

In addition, manufacturers are required to provide to CMS a 70% discount on brand name prescription drugs utilized by Medicare Part D beneficiaries when those beneficiaries are in the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit design. Congress could enact legislation that sunsets this discount program and replaces it with a new manufacturer discount program. Under either program, civil monetary penalties could be applied if a manufacturer fails to provide these discounts in the amount of 125 percent of the discount that was due. Congress further could enact a Medicare Part D inflation rebate, under which manufacturers would owe additional rebates if the average manufacturer price of a drug were to increase faster than the pace of inflation.

In order to be eligible to have our products that we successfully commercialize paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we also would have to participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), pricing program. As part of this program, we would be obligated to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract under which we must comply with standard government terms and conditions and charge a price that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price (FCP) to four federal agencies (VA, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Public Health Service, and U.S. Coast Guard).

The FCP is based on the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (Non-FAMP), which we would be required to calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant civil monetary penalties for each item of false information. The FSS pricing and contracting obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements. For additional information regarding obligations under federal health care programs, refer to the risk factor entitled “If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under that program or other governmental pricing programs that we participate in, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In the United States our activities are potentially subject to additional regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including CMS, other divisions of HHS (for example, the OIG), the DOJ and individual United States Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations,

which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in some states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing specified physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit other specified sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

Human Capital

We are committed to a work environment that is welcoming, inclusive and encouraging. To achieve our plans and goals, it is imperative that we attract and retain top talent. In order to do so, we aim to have a safe and encouraging workplace, with opportunities for our employees to grow and develop professionally, supported by strong compensation, benefits, and other incentives. In addition to competitive base salaries, we offer every full-time employee a cash target bonus, a comprehensive benefits package and equity compensation.

Historically, we have experienced a low turnover of employees. During 2021, our voluntary turnover rate was approximately 11%.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 113 full-time employees and no part-time employees. In addition to our employees, we contract with third parties for the conduct of certain clinical development, manufacturing, accounting and administrative activities. We anticipate increasing the number of our employees. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and none are represented by labor unions.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, most of our employees have been working remotely. We implemented a number of significant safety measures based on current guidelines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control for employees who choose to work at our facilities. These include, but are not limited to, social distancing, capacity limitations, mask requirements in common areas, weekly deep cleaning and daily sanitation procedures.

Reverse stock split

​

On September 23, 2020, we effected a 1-for-4 reverse split of shares of our common stock (Reverse Split), as approved by our board of directors and stockholders. The par value per share of our common stock was not adjusted as a result of the Reverse Split, and our authorized shares of common stock was reduced to 150,000,000. All of the share and per share amounts included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been adjusted to reflect the Reverse Split.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in August 2003. Our principal executive offices are located at 5 Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 500, 100 Matsonford Rd, Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 and our telephone number is (484) 801-4670. Our website address is www.marinuspharma.com. The inclusion of our website address is, in each case, intended to be an inactive textual reference only and not an active hyperlink to our website. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make available free of charge on our website, Form 10-Ks, Form 10-Qs, Form 8-Ks and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after filing with or furnishing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

​

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our business is subject to substantial risks and uncertainties. The occurrence of any of the following risks and uncertainties, either alone or taken together, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Risks and uncertainties of general applicability and additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception, including a net loss of $98.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $410.7 million. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in our research and development activities. We anticipate that our operating losses will substantially increase over the next several years as we execute our plan to expand our research, development and commercialization activities of ganaxolone. Our continuation as a going concern is dependent on our ability to (1) generate sufficient cash flows from operations to meet our obligations, (2) draw down on our existing debt facility or obtain additional debt/equity financing, (3) monetize our Priority Review Voucher, and/or (4) execute strategic transactions, as may be required.

In addition, although we have received approval to commercialize ZTALMY in CDD in the United States, we expect to incur significant sales and marketing expenses in connection with the commercial launch of ZTALMY. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or whether or when we will become profitable, if ever. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular quarter or quarters, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

As of December 31, 2021, our cash and cash equivalents, excluding the $20.0 million liquidity requirement associated with our Note Payable, was not sufficient to fund operations for the one-year period after the date hereof. These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm has included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021 related to our ability to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our financial statements, and it is likely that investors will lose all or a part of their investment. Future reports of our independent registered public accounting firm may contain statements expressing substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide funding to us on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

We have not generated any revenue to date from product sales. We may never achieve or sustain profitability, which could depress the market price of our common stock, and could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

To date we have not generated any revenue from sales of ZTALMY or any other indications being developed for ganaxolone. Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability will depend upon our ability to successfully commercialize ZTALMY and to achieve successful clinical development of ganaxolone in the other indications we are developing or other product candidates that we may develop, in-license or acquire in the future. Our

ability to generate revenue from product sales of ZTALMY, ganaxolone in the other indications we are developing or any other future product candidates also depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability to:

In addition, because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, including that ganaxolone may not advance through development or achieve the endpoints of applicable preclinical studies and clinical trials for ganaxolone in the other indications we are developing, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or if or when we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or other regulatory agencies, domestic or foreign, to perform preclinical studies and clinical trials or other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to complete the development and regulatory process for ZTALMY or ganaxolone in the other indications we are developing, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing ZTALMY, any other indications for ganaxolone or other product candidates.

Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of ZTALMY, other indications being developed for ganaxolone or any future commercial products, we may not become profitable and will need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, and we are not successful in obtaining additional funding, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels, or at all, which would likely materially and adversely affect our business and the market price of our common stock.

We will require additional capital to fund our operations and if we fail to obtain necessary financing, we may be unable to commercialize ZTALMY or complete the development and commercialization, if approved, of ganaxolone in the other indications we are developing.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to commercialize ZTALMY and to advance the clinical and regulatory development of ganaxolone in the other indications we are developing and, if approved, commercialize ganaxolone in those indications. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our commercialization efforts or our research and development programs.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents on hand as of December 31, 2021, including the $22 million previously received as a contingent refundable upfront fee, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses, capital expenditure requirements, and maintain the minimum cash balance required under our debt facility into the fourth quarter of 2022. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

If we are unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities due to a lack of capital, our ability to become profitable will be compromised. Failure to progress our product development or commercialization of ganaxolone as anticipated will have a negative effect on our business, future prospects and ability to obtain further financing on acceptable terms, if at all, and the value of the enterprise, which could require us to, among other things:

Our failure to comply with the covenants or other terms of the Credit Agreement, including as a result of events beyond our control, could result in a default under the Credit Agreement that could materially and adversely affect the ongoing viability of our business.

On May 11, 2021 (Closing Date), we entered into a Credit Agreement and Guaranty (as amended by that certain letter agreement on May 17, 2021, the Credit Agreement) with Oaktree Fund Administration, LLC, as administrative agent (Oaktree) and the lenders party thereto (collectively, the Lenders) that provides for a five-year senior secured term loan facility in an aggregate original principal amount of up to $125.0 million, consisting of (i) tranche A-1 term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $15.0 million advanced on the Closing Date, (ii) tranche A-2 term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $30.0 million advanced on September 27, 2021, (iii) tranche B term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $30.0 million, (iv) tranche C term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million and (v) tranche D term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million (collectively, the Term Loans). Our ability to draw each tranche of the Term Loans is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions applicable to each tranche as specified in the Credit Agreement. The Term Loans bear interest at a fixed per annum rate (subject to increase during an event of default) of 11.50% and are scheduled to mature on the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date (Maturity Date). In addition, at the time of funding of any tranche of the Term Loans, we are required to pay an upfront fee of 2.0% of the aggregate principal amount being funded. We are required to make quarterly interest payments until the Maturity Date. We are also required to make principal payments, which are payable in quarterly installments beginning on the last day of the first quarter ending after the third anniversary of the Closing Date, in an amount equal to 5.0% of the aggregate amount of the Term Loans outstanding on the date of the first such quarterly principal payment and continuing until the Maturity Date, on which date all outstanding Term Loans and other amounts owed under the Credit Agreement will be required to be paid in full. A commitment fee of 75 basis points per annum will accrue on each of the tranche B, C and D commitments for the period beginning 120 days after the funding date of the tranche A-2 term loans until the applicable tranche is either funded or terminated. The Term Loans will be guaranteed by certain of our future subsidiaries. Our obligations under the Credit Agreement and the guarantee of such obligations are secured by a pledge of substantially all of our assets and will be secured by a pledge of substantially all of the assets of the future guarantors.    The Credit Agreement contains various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of

transactions without Oaktree's prior consent, as well as a financial covenant that requires us to maintain at all times cash and cash equivalents in certain deposit accounts in an amount at least equal to (i) from the funding date of the tranche A-2 term loans until the funding date of the tranche B term loans, $20.0 million, and (ii) from the funding of the tranche B term loans until the Maturity Date, $15.0 million.

Oaktree may elect to accelerate the repayment of all unpaid principal of the Term Loans, accrued interest and other amounts owed under the Credit Agreement upon consummation of a specified change of control transaction or the occurrence of certain events of default (as specified in the Credit Agreement), including, among other things:

Subject to any applicable cure period set forth in the Credit Agreement, all amounts outstanding with respect to the Term Loans (principal and accrued interest), as well as any applicable prepayment premiums, interest “make-whole” payments or exit fees, would become due and payable (i) immediately, in the case of a payment or bankruptcy event of default or (ii) in the case of any other event of default, upon the request of Lenders holding at least a majority of the outstanding Term Loans and Term Loan commitments, at a default interest rate of 13.50%. Our assets or cash flow may not be sufficient to fully repay our obligations under the Term Loans if the obligations thereunder are accelerated upon any events of default. The duration and magnitude of any negative impact from the COVID-19 pandemic on ganaxolone commercialization, development or net revenues could also affect our ability to meet the requirements to draw on one or more of the Term Loan tranches and to remain in compliance with our liquidity financial covenant. Further, if we are unable to repay, refinance or restructure our obligations under the Term Loans, Oaktree on behalf of the Lenders could proceed to protect and enforce their rights under the Credit Agreement and other loan documents by exercising such remedies (including foreclosure on the assets securing our obligations under the Credit Agreement and the other loan documents) as are available to Oaktree and the Lenders and in respect thereof under applicable law, either by suit in equity or by action at law, or both, whether for specific performance of any covenant or other agreement contained in the Credit Agreement or other loan documents or in aid of the exercise of any power granted in the Credit Agreement or other loan documents. The foregoing would materially and adversely affect the ongoing viability of our business.

If we are unable to satisfy certain conditions in our Credit Agreement, we will be unable to draw down the remaining amount of the term loan facility.

For our Credit Agreement, we must satisfy certain conditions to be eligible to draw down the tranche B term loans of $30.0 million, the tranche C term loans of $25.0 million and the tranche D term loans of $25.0 million. With FDA approval of ganaxolone to treat CDD, the tranche B term loans of $30.0 million may be drawn by us on or before December 31, 2022, provided that we satisfy certain conditions described in the Credit Agreement. The tranche C term loans of $25.0 million may be drawn by us on or before June 30, 2023, provided that we satisfy certain conditions

described in the Credit Agreement, including (i) the completion of one or more financings, including through the issuance of common stock, convertible debt, subordinated debt, a synthetic royalty or a sublicense in which we receive gross proceeds in an aggregate amount of at least $40.0 million and net proceeds in an aggregate amount of at least $36.0 million and (ii) either our current Phase 3 RAISE trial or a Phase 3 trial in TSC achieving statistical significance (p value < 0.05) across all primary endpoints and ganaxolone being generally well tolerated, with a safety profile generally consistent with previous clinical trials. The tranche D term loans of $25.0 million may be drawn by us on or before December 31, 2023, provided that we satisfy certain conditions described in the Credit Agreement, including us earning an aggregate of at least $50 million in net product revenue in the United States for a trailing six consecutive months. If we are unable to satisfy those conditions, we would not be able to draw down the respective tranche of loans and may not be able to obtain alternative financing on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Our Credit Agreement contains restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business.

The Credit Agreement contains various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions without the prior consent of Oaktree and the Lenders holding a majority of the Term Loan commitments. These covenants limit our ability to, among other things:

The covenants in our Credit Agreement and related security agreements may limit our ability to take certain actions that may be in our long-term best interests. In the event that we breach one or more covenants, Oaktree may choose to declare an event of default and require that we immediately repay all amounts outstanding under the Credit Agreement, plus penalties and interest, terminate the Lenders’ commitments to fund any undrawn Term Loan tranches and foreclose on the collateral granted to them to secure the obligations under the Credit Agreement and the other loan documents. Such repayment could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

Raising additional capital could dilute our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to ganaxolone or any other future product candidates.

Until we can generate substantial revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, government funding, collaborations, licensing arrangements and other commercial transactions and funding opportunities. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of stockholders will be

diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of stockholders. Debt financing or other commercial transactions, if available, may involve agreements that include liens or restrictive covenants limiting our ability to take important actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, licensing arrangements or other commercial with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to ganaxolone or any other future product candidates in particular countries, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market ganaxolone or any other future product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We intend to expend our limited resources to pursue ganaxolone and may fail to capitalize on other technologies or any other future product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there may be a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we are focusing on commercializing ZTALMY and on research programs relating to ganaxolone, which concentrates the risk of product failure in the event ganaxolone proves to be ineffective or inadequate for clinical development or commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities for other technologies or product candidates that later could prove to have greater commercial potential. We may be unable to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities as a result of our resource allocation decisions. Our spending on proprietary research and development programs relating to ganaxolone may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for ganaxolone, we may relinquish valuable rights to ganaxolone through collaboration, licensing or other commercial arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to ganaxolone.

We have a limited operating history, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our operations to date have been limited to conducting preclinical and clinical development and regulatory activities for ganaxolone as well as commercialization preparation for ZTALMY. In addition, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical area. Nor have we demonstrated an ability to commercialize any product candidate. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they would be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products. Further, our budgeted expense levels are based in part on our expectations concerning the costs of commercialization of ZTALMY and on our research, preclinical development and clinical trials, which depend on the success of such activities, and our ability to effectively and efficiently conduct such research, preclinical development, clinical trials and our expectations related to our efforts to achieve FDA or foreign regulatory approval with respect to ganaxolone for additional indications. Our limited operating history and clinical trial experience make these costs difficult to forecast accurately. We may be unable to adjust our operations in a timely manner to compensate for any unexpected increase in costs. Further, our manufacturing costs and operating expenses may increase significantly as we expand our operations and begin our commercial activities. Accordingly, a significant increase in costs could have an immediate and material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes may be limited.

As of December 31, 2021, we had U.S. net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards of approximately $303.3 million for U.S. federal income tax and approximately $253.0 million for state income tax purposes available to offset future taxable income and U.S. federal and state research and development tax credits of approximately $16.2 million, prior to consideration of annual limitations that may be imposed under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or Section 382. Our U.S. NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2023 if not utilized.

Our U.S. NOL and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. Under Section 382, and corresponding provisions of U.S. state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership

change,” generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change U.S. NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research and development tax credits, to offset its post-change income may be limited. We have completed several financings since our inception that may have resulted in “ownership changes” within the meaning of Section 382. We have not evaluated the ownership history of our company to determine if there were any ownership changes as defined under Section 382 and the effects any ownership change may have had. We may experience additional ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, including through completed or contemplated financings, some of which may be outside of our control. If we determine that a future ownership change has occurred and our ability to use our historical net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards is materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. Furthermore, the losses could expire before we generate sufficient income to utilize them.

Risks Related to the Commercialization of ZTALMY and Other Future Product Candidates

We have no history of commercializing drugs, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our operations to date have been largely focused on raising capital and developing ganaxolone in several indications, including undertaking preclinical studies and conducting clinical trials. We have only recently received FDA approval of ZTALMY, and as such we have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully supply ZTALMY for ongoing commercial sale or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer history of successfully developing and commercializing drugs.

Even though we have obtained regulatory approval for ZTALMY in the U.S., we will still face extensive FDA regulatory requirements and may face regulatory difficulties.

Even though we have obtained regulatory approval in the U.S. for ZTALMY, the FDA and state regulatory authorities (and, if we obtain foreign regulatory approvals, comparable foreign regulatory authorities) may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of ZTALMY, or impose ongoing requirements for potential costly post-approval studies or post-marketing surveillance. For example, as part of its approval of ZTALMY for the treatment of CDD, the FDA requires that we conduct the following additional studies:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

These additional studies will likely require us to undergo a costly and time-consuming development process. If we do not meet our obligations, the FDA may issue a non-compliance letter and may also consider ZTALMY to be misbranded and subject to potential enforcement action.

We are also subject to ongoing FDA requirements governing the manufacture, quality control, further development, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, patient registry, import, export, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of safety and other post-market information. The safety profile of ganaxolone will continue to be closely monitored by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities after approval. If new safety information becomes available after approval of ganaxolone, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require labeling changes or establishment of a REMS or similar strategy, impose significant restrictions on ganaxolone’s indicated uses or marketing, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval trials or post-market surveillance. We will also be subject to continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) and good clinical practices (GCP) requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP and other regulations. If we or a regulatory authority discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we, ganaxolone or the manufacturing facilities for ganaxolone fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory authority may, among other things:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit or preclude our ability to commercialize ganaxolone and generate revenue.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval for ganaxolone that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Advertising and promotion of ZTALMY will be heavily scrutinized by, among others, the FDA, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS OIG), state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, standards and

regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, advertising and promotion to healthcare professionals, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses — that is, uses not approved by the FDA and not described in the product’s labeling — because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Broadly speaking, a manufacturer may not promote a drug for off-label use, but under certain conditions may engage in non-promotional, balanced, scientific communication regarding off-label use.  Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action, including enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or other government agencies. In addition, advertising and promotion of ganaxolone, if approved outside of the United States, will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

In the United States, promoting ganaxolone for unapproved indications can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, and other litigation and/or investigation, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute our drug products. These false claims statutes include the False Claims Act (FCA), which allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in any fines or settlement funds. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, we may become subject to such litigation and/or investigation and, if we are not successful in defending against such actions, those actions could adversely affect our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In the European Union (EU), strict requirements and restrictions regarding advertising and promotion apply, the details of which may vary per EU Member States. Violation of those rules could subject us to litigation, investigations and/or civil and criminal penalties, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market access and acceptance of ZTALMY among physicians, patients, government and private payers and others in the medical community and attaining sufficient reimbursement for ganaxolone.

Even though ZTALMY received FDA approval for CDD, it may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, government and private payers, or others in the medical community. Market acceptance of ZTALMY (and of any potential future products we commercialize) depends on a number of factors, including:

If ZTALMY fails to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, government or private payers or others in the medical community, or the products or product candidates that are being administered with ganaxolone cause AEs, as the case may be, we may not be able to generate significant revenues, which would compromise our ability to become profitable. Many of these matters are beyond our control and are subject to other risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully commercialize or generate revenue from ZTALMY (or any future products).

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to ganaxolone both for the treatment of CDD and for other indications, and will face competition with respect to any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we are developing ganaxolone. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as, or similar to, our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. For example, there are several companies developing product candidates that target the same GABA_A neuroreceptor that we are targeting or that are testing product candidates in the same indications that we are testing. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and

private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Ganaxolone is presently being developed as an antiepileptic therapeutic. There are a variety of marketed therapies available for these patients.

Specifically, there are more than 25 approved AEDs available in the United States and worldwide, including the generic products levetiracetam, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, valproic acid and topiramate. Recent market entrants include branded products developed by Lundbeck, UCB (including acquisition of Zogenix), Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals (via acquisition of GW Pharmaceuticals), SK Biopharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. In addition, there are several drugs in clinical development for the treatment of pediatric orphan epilepsy indications, including compounds being developed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals (via acquisition of GW Pharmaceuticals), UCB (including acquisition of Zogenix) and Takeda.

Many of the approved drugs are well established therapies or products and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payers. Insurers and other third-party payers may also encourage the use of generic products. These factors may make it difficult for us to achieve market acceptance at desired levels or in a timely manner to ensure viability of our business.

More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their greater size, cash flows and institutional experience. Compared to us, many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources.

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products before we are able to, which may limit our ability to develop or commercialize ganaxolone. Our competitors may also develop products that are safer, more effective, more widely used and cheaper than ours, and may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. These appreciable advantages could render ganaxolone obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of ganaxolone’s development and commercialization.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

If we are unable to differentiate ZTALMY from current and future products or existing methods of treatments, our ability to successfully commercialize ZTALMY would be adversely affected.

We initially intend to commercialize ZTALMY for the treatment of CDD and seek FDA approval for ganaxolone with respect to additional indications. Ganaxolone is the first product to receive regulatory approval for reduction of seizures specifically in patients with CDD.  Patients with CDD are generally on a number of anti-epileptic medications and physicians’ determining whether to prescribe ZTALMY to their CDD patients may add ZTALMY to existing regimens for patients or make changes in their patients’ current medications to introduce ZTALMY. If we are unable to achieve significant differentiation for ZTALMY against these other products and treatments or future treatments, including on the basis of efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of administration, price and reimbursement, the opportunity for ZTALMY to be commercialized successfully would be adversely affected.

ZTALMY is our first commercial product and our sales field force is currently being hired. If our sales and marketing capabilities to market and sell ganaxolone are not effective, we may be unable to generate any revenue.

ZTALMY is our first commercial product and we have hired experienced internal commercial leadership in our organization to support commercialization of ZTALMY, including sales, marketing, sales operations, and distribution of pharmaceutical products. We are in the process of hiring our first field sales force which we plan to have in place by the

second quarter 2022. We are competing for sales talent with companies that have extensive, well-funded marketing and sales operations and successful products in the market. We have no track record commercializing products which may make it more difficult to attract and retain an effective sales field force. If we are unable to hire and maintain an effective field sales force for our first commercial launch, we may not be successful in generating revenue. Additionally, if our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, are not adequate, we may not be able to generate product revenue and may not become profitable. Even if we are able to attract and retain an effective sales field force, we may be unable to compete successfully against more established companies.

Even if we are able to commercialize ganaxolone, it may not receive coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payers, which could harm our business.

Our ability to successfully commercialize ganaxolone will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for ganaxolone will be available from government health administration authorities, including Medicaid, which we expect will be a significant portion of patients prescribed ZTALMY, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and commercial third-party payers, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, determine which medications they will cover, the process for making such decisions, and the reimbursement levels for those medications. Obtaining formulary coverage and favorable reimbursement levels for ZTALMY from government authorities or other third-party commercial payers is expected to be a time consuming and costly process, especially in the first year of regulatory approval. It is expected that we will be required to provide supporting clinical scientific and economic evidence in the form of cost-effectiveness and real-world data, outcomes beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval.  We may not be able to gain acceptance from government health authorities, third-party payers or employer sponsored plans and, even if we are able to do so, the timing and the consistency in payer formulary placement or utilization management may vary greatly from government health authorities, third-party payers and by employer sponsored plans.

​

A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is budget predictability and cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payers have attempted to control costs by limiting access through utilization management controls, formulary placement and reimbursement amounts for particular medications and procedures. Increasingly, third-party payers are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined utilization discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for drugs. Third-party payers or PMBs may also seek additional clinical and economic evidence, beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval, which may include demonstrating clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations before covering ganaxolone for those patients. We cannot be sure that formulary placement, coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for ganaxolone and, if such is available, what hurdles may be put in place for prescribing physicians to navigate. Coverage and reimbursement may impact physician or institutional demand for ganaxolone, and that demand may vary by region or by payer segment. If coverage and reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize ganaxolone.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on formulary coverage or reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs will be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by Medicaid government healthcare programs and may be reduced by private payers and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payers and PBMs often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. Our inability to obtain coverage and favorable reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payers for ZTALMY could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

If the market opportunities for ZTALMY in CDD and other indications for which we obtain regulatory approval, if any, are smaller than we believe they are, our results of operations may be adversely affected and our business may suffer. 

​

We focus our research and product development on therapeutics to treat patients suffering from seizure disorders. Our projections of both the number of people who have these disorders, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with ganaxolone, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies or clinical trials may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these disorders. The number of patients in the United States and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with ganaxolone, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.  ZTALMY has received regulatory approval in the U.S. for CDD and our estimates of the market for ZTALMY in CDD may be incorrect. Our ability to obtain market information is limited since ZTALMY is the first drug to be approved specifically for use in seizures associated with CDD and the ICD10 code for CDD was established in 2020, and there is limited market data available for CDD.

​

A variety of risks associated with marketing ganaxolone internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

We plan to seek regulatory approval for ganaxolone outside of the United States, and, accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:

These and other risks associated with our international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of ganaxolone or other future product candidates that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of ganaxolone by us or our investigators in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk now that ZTALMY has received FDA approval and we enter the commercial market. Product liability claims may be brought against us by patients enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, healthcare providers or others using, administering or selling ganaxolone. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that ganaxolone caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in, for example: 

​

We currently have product liability insurance coverage, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. We intend to expand our product liability insurance coverage to include the sale of ZTALMY, but we may be unable to obtain commercially reasonable limits for product liability insurance. Large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, particularly if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. 

If the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities approve generic products that compete with any of our products or product candidates, it could reduce our sales of those products or product candidates.

In the United States, after an NDA is approved, the product generally becomes a “listed drug” which can, in turn, be relied upon by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA regulations and other applicable regulations and policies provide incentives to manufacturers to create generic, non-infringing versions of a drug to facilitate the approval of an ANDA. These manufacturers might show that their product has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, conditions of use, and labeling as

our product candidate and might conduct a relatively inexpensive study to demonstrate that the generic product is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent as, or is bioequivalent to, our product. These generic equivalents would be significantly less costly than ours to bring to market, and companies that produce generic equivalents are generally able to offer their products at lower prices. Thus, after the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product are typically lost to the generic product. Accordingly, competition from generic equivalents to our products would substantially limit our ability to generate revenues and therefore to obtain a return on the investments we have made in our products.

​

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Regulatory Approval of our Product Candidates

Our future success is dependent on the successful clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization of ganaxolone, which is being studied in several indications and will require significant capital resources and years of additional clinical development effort.

We have only recently received FDA approval of ZTALMY in CDD, and we continue to develop ganaxolone in several additional indications in oral and IV formulations. As a result, our business is dependent on our ability to successfully complete clinical development, scale-up manufacturing, obtain regulatory approval, and, if approved, commercialize ganaxolone in a timely manner. We can begin to commercialize ZTALMY in CDD once we receive our scheduling designation under the CSA, but we cannot commercialize ganaxolone in the United States in any other indication without first obtaining regulatory approval from the FDA; similarly, we cannot commercialize ganaxolone outside of the United States without obtaining regulatory approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of ganaxolone for a target indication, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence gathered in preclinical studies and clinical trials and, with respect to approval in the United States, to the satisfaction of the FDA, that ganaxolone is safe and effective for use for that target indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate.

Ganaxolone is metabolized extensively in animals and humans.  During the development of CDD, one major metabolite (M2) was present in plasma of humans that was not found in plasma of rats or dogs. The chemical structure of M2 has been identified. In October 2020, the FDA communicated that the characterization of the activity of the M2 metabolite would need to be included in the NDA submission for CDD. We have determined that M2 has no functional activity on GABA receptors and have concluded that M2 does not contribute to the pharmacological activity associated with ganaxolone administration.  The results of the activity assay were included in the July 2021 NDA submission for CDD, as required. Additionally, a dose range finding study in rats and an in vivo micronucleus with comet analysis for the detection of genotoxicity have been conducted, with the results from the verified draft study report showing no genotoxicity found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. The final study report is expected by the end of the second quarter of 2022. Results from additional preclinical studies are required to the FDA as post-marketing requirement(s). These include: 2-year carcinogenicity studies of ganaxolone and the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; a 26-week carcinogenicity of ganaxolone in transgenic mice; a juvenile animal toxicity study of the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; phase 1 renal and hepatic impairment studies and a thorough QTc study; extractable/leachable study results on the container closure system; a CNS distribution study of the M47 metabolite in rats; and in vitro studies to assess the drug interaction potential of M47 metabolite. There is a risk that these studies may have negative findings. We plan to complete the required FDA studies within the required FDA timeframe. In the EU, if additional studies are needed, these are usually required before or during MAA review.

​

We are conducting the RAISE trial in RSE, which is a life threatening medical condition involving prolonged seizure activity in seriously ill patients. The RAISE trial requires expertise in electroencephalogram (EEG) interpretation, which may be subject to variability, and the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could find the data generated in this trial inadequate or difficult to interpret, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval for this indication. Additionally, the clinical trial endpoints of the RAISE trial are based on treatment outcomes, including initiation of anesthesia for treatment of RSE. Practice variability in the use of anesthesia for SE treatment could adversely impact the ability to show a treatment effect with ganaxolone.

​

We have recently reported data from the CALM trial evaluating safety and efficacy of adjunctive oral ganaxolone treatment in patients with TSC. The primary endpoint showed median 16.6% reduction in 28-day primary endpoint seizure frequency relative to the four-week baseline period. In addition, data from the Phase 2 TSC trial suggested that in patients on concomitant Epidiolex, early elevation of ganaxolone blood levels occurred and appeared to be linked to greater somnolence. We have adjusted the titration schedule in the Phase 3 TSC trial with a goal of improving tolerability. Undesirable side effects, including those resulting from drug interactions with Epidiolex and other antiseizure medications, could delay clinical trials and result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities requiring us to conduct additional studies or trials for our product candidate either prior or post-approval, such as additional drug-drug interaction studies or safety or efficacy studies, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program. There is also a risk that the Phase 3 clinical trial of ganaxolone in TSC will generate data that is not sufficient to support regulatory approvals for this indication.

​

Even if ganaxolone were to obtain approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for TSC, RSE, or any other indication under development, any approval might contain significant limitations, such as restrictions as to specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval trial or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for ganaxolone in these additional indications in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding or generate sufficient revenue to continue the development of any other indications for ganaxolone or any other product candidate that we may in-license, develop or acquire in the future. Furthermore, even with regulatory approval for ganaxolone, we will still need to develop a commercial organization, establish commercially viable pricing and obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payers. If we are unable to successfully commercialize ganaxolone, we may not be able to earn sufficient revenue to continue our business.

We are conducting clinical development activities for ganaxolone across multiple indications, and such clinical development activities may not produce favorable results, which could adversely impact our ability to achieve regulatory approval for ganaxolone in such indications.

We are conducting clinical development activities for ganaxolone across multiple indications. Success in preclinical studies and early clinical trials in one indication does not ensure that later clinical trials in such indication or other indications will generate adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of ganaxolone in one or more indications. Furthermore, unfavorable clinical trial results in one ganaxolone indication may adversely impact our ability to continue to develop such indication or other ganaxolone indications. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including those with greater resources and experience, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after seeing promising results in earlier studies and clinical trials. For example, while ganaxolone showed statistical separation from placebo in a Phase 2 clinical trial in adjunctive treatment of adults with focal onset seizures, ganaxolone failed to show a similar statistically significant separation in a Phase 3 clinical trial for the same indication. As a result, we discontinued our program in adult focal onset seizures and began to focus our efforts on advancing ganaxolone in RSE and pediatric orphan genetic epilepsy indications. We do not know whether the clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety to result in regulatory approval to market ganaxolone in any particular jurisdiction or indication. If clinical trials underway or conducted in the future do not produce favorable results, our ability to achieve regulatory approval for ganaxolone in those indications may be adversely impacted. Further, even if we believe the data collected from our clinical trials of ganaxolone are promising, these data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Pre-clinical and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways. Accordingly, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could interpret these data in different ways from us, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

Ganaxolone may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties, such as abuse potential, that could delay or prevent its regulatory approval in indications under clinical development, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following any marketing approval.

Undesirable side effects caused by ganaxolone could cause us, an institutional review board (IRB), or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority. To date, a total of 1,930 patients

have received at least one dose of ganaxolone across the 46 completed trials. This includes 447 patients in Phase 1 and 1,483 patients in Phase 2/3 trials. In addition, 77 patients were administered the IV formulation and 16 patients received both the IV and oral formulations. Although ganaxolone has generally been well-tolerated by patients in our clinical trials to date, in some cases there were side effects, and some of the side effects were severe. The most frequent side effects were dizziness, fatigue and somnolence (or drowsiness). More side effects of the CNS were categorized as severe as compared to side effects of other body systems. There has been one case of hepatic failure resulting in death in a pediatric patient receiving ganaxolone, which the study investigator assessed as unrelated to the medication.

If these side effects are reported in future clinical trials, or if other safety or toxicity issues are reported in our future clinical trials, we may not receive approval to market ganaxolone or approval may be limited, which could prevent us from ever generating material revenue or achieving profitability. Furthermore, although we are currently developing ganaxolone for multiple indications, negative safety findings in any one indication could force us to delay or discontinue development in other indications. Results of our clinical trials could reveal an unacceptably high severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development, or deny approval, of ganaxolone for any or all targeted indications. Drug-related side effects could affect trial subject recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete our future clinical trials and may result in potential product liability claims. Additionally, in our clinical trials ganaxolone is added to the standard of care, which includes many antiseizure medications. Drug interactions with any of the medications could result in safety concerns or reduce the population in which ganaxolone may be used. For example, in our recently completed clinical trial of ganaxolone in TSC, we reported data that suggested that in patients on concomitant Epidiolex, early elevation of ganaxolone blood levels occurred and appeared to be linked to greater somnolence. Undesirable side effects, including those resulting from drug interactions with Epidiolex and other antiseizure medications, could delay clinical trials and result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities requiring us to conduct additional studies or trials for our product candidate either prior to or post-approval, such as additional drug-drug interaction studies or safety or efficacy studies or trials, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program.

Ganaxolone is metabolized extensively in animals and humans.  During the development of CDD, one major metabolite (M2) was present in plasma of humans that was not found in plasma of rats or dogs. The chemical structure of M2 has been identified. In October 2020, the FDA communicated that the characterization of the activity of the M2 metabolite would need to be included in the NDA submission for CDD. We have determined that M2 has no functional activity on GABA receptors and have concluded that M2 does not contribute to the pharmacological activity associated with ganaxolone administration.  The results of the activity assay were included in the July 2021 NDA submission for CDD, as required. Additionally, a dose range finding study in rats and an in vivo micronucleus with comet analysis for the detection of genotoxicity have been conducted, with the results from the verified draft study report showing no genotoxicity found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. The final study report is expected by the end of the second quarter of 2022. Results from additional preclinical studies are required to the FDA as post-marketing requirement(s). These include: 2-year carcinogenicity studies of ganaxolone and the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; a 26-week carcinogenicity of ganaxolone in transgenic mice; a juvenile animal toxicity study of the major human unconjugated plasma metabolite, M2, in rats; phase 1 renal and hepatic impairment studies and a thorough QTc study; extractable/leachable study results on the container closure system; a CNS distribution study of the M47 metabolite in rats; and in vitro studies to assess the drug interaction potential of M47 metabolite. There is a risk that these studies may have negative findings. We plan to complete the required FDA studies within the required FDA timeframe. In the EU, if additional studies are needed, these are usually required before or during MAA review.

​

If we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by ganaxolone after receiving marketing approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of ganaxolone.

The FDA has recommended scheduling of ganaxolone as a controlled substance based on the abuse liability assessment conducted for the NDA submission. As such, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will need to determine the controlled substance schedule of the product, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA. DEA scheduling would be expected to occur within 90 days of the date of approval and will delay our ability to market ganaxolone until determined. As a controlled substance, the manufacture, import, export, distribution, storage, sale, dispensing, prescribing, and use will be subject to a significant degree of additional regulation by the DEA as well as state regulatory authorities. The restrictive nature of these regulations could also limit commercialization and market acceptance of ganaxolone.

The therapeutic efficacy and safety of ganaxolone in indications other than CDD have not been established by regulatory authorities, and we may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize ganaxolone in the other indications under clinical development in the future.

Our ability to generate revenue from ganaxolone in other indications we have under clinical development such as RSE and TSC will depend on our successful development and commercialization after regulatory approval in those indications, which is subject to many potential risks and may not occur. Ganaxolone may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. If ganaxolone is associated with undesirable side effects or has characteristics that are unexpected in these indications, we may need to limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many compounds that are approved in one indication fail to achieve regulatory approvals in additional indications. As a result of these and other risks described herein that are inherent in the development of novel therapeutic agents, we may never successfully develop ganaxolone in additional indications, which would significantly decrease the commercial potential of ganaxolone overall.

Clinical development of product candidates involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome.

Clinical trials are expensive, can take many years to complete, and are inherently uncertain as to outcome. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin or enroll patients on time, need to be redesigned or be completed on schedule, if at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities will not put clinical trials of ganaxolone on clinical hold now or in the future. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated for a variety of reasons, such as:

Trial subject enrollment, which significantly impacts the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the subject population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, risk that enrolled patients will drop out before completion, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved or product candidates that may be studied in competing clinical trials for the indications we are investigating. Some of our clinical trials are directed at small patient populations. Patient enrollment in these trials could be particularly challenging. In the past, we have experienced delays in enrolling patients in trials directed at small patient populations. We rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials, and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

If we experience delays in the completion of any clinical trial of ganaxolone, the commercial prospects of ganaxolone may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from ganaxolone, if approved, will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval process for ganaxolone and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of ganaxolone.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for ganaxolone across all indications and markets, which could limit the potential profitability of ganaxolone.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for an indication for which it receives the designation, then the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity that precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for the exclusivity period except in limited situations. For purposes of small molecule drugs, the FDA defines “same drug” as a drug that contains the same active moiety and is intended for the same use as the drug in question. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation.

We have received orphan drug designation in the United States for treating Infantile Spasms, SE, CDD, TSC and PCDH19-RE with ganaxolone and expect that we may in the future pursue orphan drug designations for ganaxolone for one or more additional indications. However, obtaining an orphan drug designation can be difficult and we may not be successful in doing so for additional ganaxolone indications. Orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate may not effectively protect the product from the competition of different drugs for the same condition, which could be approved during the exclusivity period. In addition, after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA could subsequently approve another application for the same drug for the same indication if the FDA concludes that the later drug is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States also may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the

manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. The failure to obtain or maintain an orphan drug designation for any indication of ganaxolone that we may develop, or the inability to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of ganaxolone to balance our expenses incurred to develop it, which would have a negative impact on our operational results and financial condition.

In the EU, we have received orphan designation for treating CDD with ganaxolone. Orphan designation would entitle us to receive ten years of orphan market exclusivity in the EU, but only if the product continues to meet the orphan designation criteria when the marketing authorization is granted. If a similar medicinal product (i.e., a medicinal product with an identical active substance, or an active substance with the same principal molecular structural features and which acts via the same mechanism) receives marketing authorization for the same indication before we receive marketing authorization, the other product’s orphan market exclusivity may prevent ganaxolone from receiving marketing authorization, unless we are able to demonstrate that ganaxolone is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior. In the EU, if we obtain and maintain orphan designation for ganaxolone upon marketing authorization, the European Commission could subsequently approve a similar medicinal product for the same indication if the European Commission, after assessment by the EMA, concludes that the similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior. Orphan market exclusivity rights in the EU may also be lost if we are unable to supply sufficient quantities of the product.

The failure to obtain or maintain an orphan drug designation for any indication of ganaxolone that we may develop, or the inability to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of ganaxolone to balance our expenses incurred to develop it, which would have a negative impact on our operational results and financial condition.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions would prevent ganaxolone from being marketed in these jurisdictions.

In order to market and sell our products in the EU and many other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, many countries outside the United States require that a product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. By way of example, we submitted an MAA for ganaxolone in CDD to the EMA on October 11, 2021 and expect the CHMP’s opinion on the MAA by the end of 2022. The CHMP may not approve our MAA for ganaxolone in CDD even though we have received FDA approval for CDD in the United States. If we are unable to obtain approval of ganaxolone by regulatory authorities in the EU or another country or jurisdiction, the commercial prospects of ganaxolone may be significantly diminished and our business prospects could decline.

ZTALMY is expected to be regulated as a controlled substance, the making, use, sale, importation, exportation, and distribution of which is subject to significant regulation by the DEA and other regulatory agencies.

The FDA and HHS have recommended controlled substance scheduling for ganaxolone.  The DEA will need to determine the controlled substance schedule taking into account the recommendation of the FDA and HHS. While we believe, based on our assessment of the abuse-related preclinical and clinical data on ganaxolone and its mechanism of action, ZTALMY to be a Schedule IV drug, the DEA will make the final determination as to the scheduling. The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the U.S. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. If ganaxolone is determined to be a controlled substance, the manufacturing, shipping, distribution, import, export, packaging, storing, prescribing, dispensing, selling

and use of ganaxolone will be subject to additional regulations, including under the CSA and DEA regulations. Regulations associated with controlled substances also govern production and procurement quotas, recordkeeping, reporting, handling, and disposal. Additionally, if ganaxolone is determined to be a controlled substance, facilities conducting research, manufacturing, distributing, importing or exporting, or dispensing ganaxolone must be registered (licensed) to perform these activities and have the security, control, recordkeeping, reporting and inventory mechanisms required by the DEA. All these facilities must renew their registrations annually, except dispensing facilities, which must renew every three years.  The DEA, and some states, also conduct periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. These regulations increase the personnel needs and the expense associated with commercialization of products.  Because of their restrictive nature, these laws and regulations could also limit commercialization of ganaxolone. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could also result in loss of DEA registrations, disruption in manufacturing and distribution activities, consent decrees, criminal and civil penalties and state actions, among other consequences.

Various states also independently regulate controlled substances. Though state controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule drugs as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug when the DEA does so, in other states there must be a rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of ganaxolone and adverse scheduling could impair the commercial attractiveness of ganaxolone. Many states require separate state registrations in order to be able to obtain, manufacture, handle, distribute and dispense controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions from the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their duties in compliance with contractual terms and/or regulatory requirements or meet expected timelines, our development plans may be adversely affected and we may not be able to commercialize ganaxolone for CDD or obtain regulatory approval for ganaxolone in other indications.

We rely on third-party CROs to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. We also rely on third parties to assist in conducting our preclinical studies in accordance with GLP and the Animal Welfare Act requirements, where applicable. We and our CROs are required to comply with federal regulations and GCP, which are international requirements meant to protect the rights and health of patients that are enforced by the FDA, the competent authorities of the EU Member States and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for ganaxolone. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP requirements. Failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Although we depend heavily on these parties and have contractual agreements governing their activities, we cannot control them and therefore, we cannot be assured that these third parties will devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize ganaxolone. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for ganaxolone would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

For example, we recently had a product supply interruption in our IV ganaxolone clinical supplies. After routine monitoring of stability batches of clinical supply material, it became necessary to reduce the shelf life to less than

the anticipated 24-months to meet product stability testing and specifications. We are working with our third-party manufacturers to resupply clinical trial material so that we can restart our RAISE trial. We are also working with our third-party manufacturers to implement improvements in the IV formulation with a goal of achieving a 24-month shelf life for our IV formulation, including changing the buffer in our IV formulation to increase stability of the formulation. We are highly dependent on our third-party manufacturers to resupply IV ganaxolone to restart the RAISE trial and to manufacture new supplies of IV ganaxolone. We do not control our third-party manufacturers and there is a risk that they could take longer than expected to resupply IV ganaxolone or to reformulate ganaxolone as planned.

If any of our relations terminate, switching or adding additional CROs would involve additional cost and require management time and focus. Identifying, qualifying and managing performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time consuming and cause delays in our development programs. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. If any of our relationships with our third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. As a result, delays my occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines.

In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. We currently have a small number of employees, which limits the internal resources we have available to monitor our third-party providers. To the extent we are unable to identify and successfully manage the performance of third-party service providers, our business may be adversely affected. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We have multiple ganaxolone drug products in development, and until such products are approved by regulatory authorities, there remains the risk that the drug product quality requirements may not support continued clinical investigation and result in delays or termination of such clinical studies, and product approvals.

We currently have multiple ganaxolone drug products in clinical development, including an oral suspension, IV solution and a new formulation we are preparing for Phase 1 clinical trials. We anticipate this formulation will be in a Phase 1 trial in the second quarter of 2022. While we strive to develop a full understanding of manufacturing processes used, as well as the resultant product quality attributes, there is a risk that problems may arise over the course of development which could render a given drug product non-viable. Such problems could relate to manufacturing reproducibility, scale-up challenges, drug product chemical or physical stability issues. Related quality requirements may not support continued clinical investigation and result in delays or termination of such clinical studies and product approvals. Such quality requirements can include physical and chemical attributes of the drug product, stability and shelf life, microbial and other contamination, including adverse impact of drug product packaging and administration devices. These problems could result in unacceptable manufacturing economics, or direct concerns related to drug product safety or efficacy.

Our experience manufacturing ganaxolone is limited to the needs of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. We have no experience manufacturing ganaxolone on a commercial scale and have no manufacturing facility. We are dependent on third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of ganaxolone drug substance and drug products as well as on third parties for our supply chain, and if we experience problems with any such third parties, the manufacturing and supply of ganaxolone could be delayed.

We do not own or operate facilities for the manufacture of ganaxolone. We currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We currently rely on CMOs for the manufacture of ganaxolone APIs and other CMOs for the production of ganaxolone drug products, including capsules, liquid oral suspension and IV solution, and we plan to rely on CMOs for the manufacture of ganaxolone for commercial use. To meet our projected needs for preclinical and clinical supplies to support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing, the CMOs with whom we currently work will need to increase the scale of production. We may need to identify additional CMOs for continued production of supply for ganaxolone. Although alternative third-party suppliers with the necessary manufacturing and regulatory expertise and facilities exist, it could be expensive and take a significant amount of time to arrange for alternative suppliers. If we are unable to arrange for alternative third-

party manufacturing sources on commercially reasonable terms, in a timely manner or at all, we may not be able to complete development of ganaxolone, or market or distribute ganaxolone.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured ganaxolone ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control, including a failure to synthesize and manufacture ganaxolone, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the manufacturing agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities will require that ganaxolone be manufactured according to cGMP and similar foreign standards. Any failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of ganaxolone in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of ganaxolone. In addition, such failure could be the basis for the FDA or other regulatory authorities to issue a warning letter, withdraw approvals for ganaxolone previously granted to us, or take other regulatory or legal action, including recall or seizure of outside supplies of ganaxolone, total or partial suspension of production, suspension of ongoing clinical trials, refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, detention of product, refusal to permit the import or export of products, injunction, or imposing civil and criminal penalties.

Any significant disruption in our supplier relationships could harm our business. Any significant delay in the supply of ganaxolone or its key raw materials for an ongoing preclinical study or clinical trial could considerably delay completion of such preclinical study or clinical trial, product testing and potential regulatory approval of ganaxolone. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these key raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for ganaxolone, the commercial launch of ganaxolone would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of ganaxolone.

Ganaxolone drug substance is manufactured by a CMO in Taiwan, and key starting materials, including the regulatory starting material (RSM) are sourced from China. While the FDA has accepted our RSM, the EMA may ultimately not accept the RSM, which could result in a significant delay to EU approvals. In addition, the current drug substance supply chain sourcing API supply from China and Taiwan is subject to the geopolitical environment, which is difficult to predict and may become less stable, which may put our API supply from that region at risk.

We will depend on Orion for the commercialization of ganaxolone in Europe, and if they terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement, we would not have a European commercial presence.

On July 30, 2021, we entered into the Orion Collaboration Agreement whereby Orion received exclusive rights to commercialize ganaxolone in the European Economic Area, United Kingdom and Switzerland in multiple seizure disorders, including CDD, TSC and RSE, if and when approved. The timing and amount of any milestone and royalty payments we receive under this agreement will depend in part on Orion’s efforts. We will also depend on Orion to comply with all applicable laws relative to the commercialization of ganaxolone in Europe. We do not control the individual efforts of Orion, and any failure by Orion to devote sufficient time and effort to the commercialization of ganaxolone could have a material adverse impact on our financial results and operations, such as a failure by Orion to meet its obligations to us, including future milestone and royalty payments. In addition, if Orion were to violate, or was alleged to have violated, any laws or regulations during the performance of its obligations for us, it is possible that we could suffer financial and reputational harm or other negative outcomes, including possible legal consequences.

Any termination, breach or expiration of the Orion Collaboration Agreement could have a material adverse effect on our financial position by reducing or eliminating the potential for us to receive milestones and royalties. In such an event, we may be required to devote additional efforts and to incur additional costs associated with pursuing the commercialization of ganaxolone in Europe. If we breach our obligations under the Orion Collaboration Agreement and are unable to cure such breach, Orion may terminate the agreement and retain all rights to commercialize ganaxolone in Europe with no obligation to make any additional milestone or royalty payments.

We agreed to provide Orion with the results of a planned genotoxicity study on the M2 metabolite of ganaxolone, a “Combined Micronucleus & Comet study in vivo.” In the event that the results of such study were

positive, based on the criteria set forth in the study’s protocol, Orion would have had the right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement within ninety (90) days after its receipt of the final report of such study, in which case we would have been required to refund Orion seventy-five percent (75%) of the upfront fee. In the event of such termination and refund, Orion would have had no further rights pursuant to the oral and IV dose formulations of ganaxolone and the Orion Collaboration Agreement would have terminated and been of no further force or effect. In February 2022, the verified draft study report showed that no genotoxicity was found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. As such, but subject to confirmation of such results in the final study report by the end of the second quarter of 2022, we will not be required to refund Orion any of the upfront fee and Orion will not have a right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement as a result of the study’s findings.

Government funding for certain aspects of our programs adds uncertainty to our research efforts with respect to those programs and may impose requirements that increase the costs of commercialization and production of product candidates developed under those government-funded programs.

In September 2020, we entered into the BARDA Contract with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Under the BARDA Contract, we received an award of up to an estimated $51 million for development of IV administered ganaxolone for the treatment of RSE. The BARDA Contract consists of an approximately two-year base period-during which BARDA will provide up to approximately $21 million of funding for the Phase 3 RAISE trial on a cost share basis and funding of additional preclinical studies of ganaxolone in nerve agent exposure models. Following successful completion of the RAISE trial and preclinical studies in the base period, the BARDA Contract provides for approximately $30 million of additional BARDA funding for three options in support of ganaxolone manufacturing, supply chain, clinical, regulatory and toxicology activities. Under the BARDA Contract, we will be responsible for cost sharing in the amount of approximately $33 million and BARDA will be responsible for approximately $51 million, if all development options are completed. The contract period-of-performance (base period plus option exercises) is up to approximately five years.

Programs funded by the United States government and its agencies include provisions that confer on the government substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including powers of the government to:

We may not have the right to prohibit the United States government from using or allowing others to use certain technologies developed by us, and we may not be able to prohibit third-party companies, including our competitors, from using those technologies in providing products and services to the United States government. The United States

government generally obtains the right to royalty-free use of technologies that are developed under United States government contracts.

In addition, government contracts normally contain additional requirements that may increase our costs of doing business, reduce our profits, and expose us to liability for failure to comply with these terms and conditions. These requirements include, for example:

If we fail to maintain compliance with these requirements, we may be subject to potential contract liability and to termination of our contracts. In addition, if an audit or review uncovers any improper or illegal activity, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of our contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. government. We could also suffer serious harm to our reputation if allegations of impropriety were made against us. In addition, under U.S. government purchasing regulations, some of our costs may not be reimbursable or allowed under the BARDA Contract. Further, as a U.S. government contractor, we are subject to an increased risk of investigations, criminal prosecution, civil fraud, whistleblower lawsuits and other legal actions and liabilities as compared to private sector commercial companies.

Further, changes in government budgets and agendas may result in a decreased and de-prioritized emphasis on supporting the RSE development program. Any reduction or delay in BARDA funding may force us to seek alternative funding in order to progress our RSE program, which may not be available on non-dilutive terms, terms favorable to us or at all.

We may elect to enter into license or collaboration agreements to partner ganaxolone in territories currently retained by us. Our dependence on such relationships may adversely affect our business.

Because we have limited resources, we have and expect that we will continue to enter into license or collaboration agreements with other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. Any failure by our partners to perform their obligations or any decision by our partners to terminate these agreements could negatively impact our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approvals for and commercialize ganaxolone. In the event we grant exclusive rights to such partners, we would be precluded from potential commercialization of ganaxolone within the territories in which we have a partner. In addition, any termination of our license or collaboration agreements will terminate the funding we may receive under the relevant license or collaboration agreement and may impair our ability to fund further development efforts and our progress in our development programs.

Our commercialization strategy for ganaxolone may depend on our ability to enter into agreements with partners to obtain assistance and funding for the development and potential commercialization of ganaxolone in the territories in which we seek to partner. Despite our efforts, we may be unable to secure license or collaboration agreements or other arrangements that are necessary for us to further develop and commercialize ganaxolone. Supporting diligence activities conducted by potential licensees or collaborators and negotiating the financial and other terms of a license or collaboration agreement are long and complex processes with uncertain results. Even if we are successful in entering into one or more license or collaboration agreements, such agreements may involve greater uncertainty for us, as we would have less control over certain aspects of our partnered programs than we do over our un-partnered programs. We may determine that continuing a license or collaboration under the terms provided is not in our

best interest, and we may terminate the license or collaboration. Our potential future partners could delay or terminate their agreements, and as a result ganaxolone may never be successfully commercialized.

Further, our potential future partners may develop alternative products or pursue alternative technologies either on their own or in collaboration with others, including our competitors, and the priorities or focus of our partners may shift such that ganaxolone receives less attention or resources than we would like, or they may be terminated altogether. Any such actions by our potential future partners may adversely affect our business prospects and ability to earn revenue. In addition, we could have disputes with our potential future partners, such as the interpretation of terms in our agreements. Any such disagreements could lead to delays in the development or commercialization of ganaxolone or could result in time-consuming and expensive litigation or arbitration, which may not be resolved in our favor.

If our third-party manufacturers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials by our third-party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical, radioactive and hazardous materials. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical, radioactive or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical radioactive or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to Regulatory Compliance

Currently enacted and future legislation, including potentially unfavorable pricing regulations or other healthcare reform initiatives, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize ganaxolone and affect the prices we may obtain.

The regulations that govern, among other things, marketing approvals, coverage, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of ganaxolone, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to successfully sell ganaxolone, if we obtain marketing approval.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to contain healthcare costs. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Modernization Act) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by eligible beneficiaries and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician administered drugs. In recent years, Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement for drugs administered by physicians. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) also has the authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions for drugs. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products, which in turn would affect the price we can receive for those products. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our drugs. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for ganaxolone, if approved, or additional pricing pressures.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is intended to reduce the cost of, improve the quality of, and expand access to healthcare, among other things. Among other things, the Affordable Care Act expanded manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to include covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, increased the minimum rebate due for innovator drugs from 15.1% of average manufacturer price (AMP) to 23.1% of AMP and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100.0% of AMP. The Affordable Care Act and subsequent legislation also changed the definition of AMP (which cap is set to be lifted on January 1, 2024). Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act imposed a significant annual, nondeductible fee on companies that manufacture or import certain branded prescription drug products.

Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act have been subject to judicial challenges as well as efforts to modify them or to alter their interpretation or implementation. Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes, and judicial challenges related to the Affordable Care Act remain possible, but the nature and extent of such potential changes or challenges are uncertain at this time. The implications of the Affordable Care Act, and efforts to modify or invalidate the Affordable Care Act or its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, and the political uncertainty surrounding any efforts to further reform health care for our business and financial condition, if any, are not clear. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the Affordable Care Act as well as its possible modification or invalidation and other healthcare reform measures, has on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of an amount greater than $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to healthcare providers of, on average, 2.0% per fiscal year, starting in 2013 and continuing through 2030 (with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 2022). The law provides for 1% Medicare sequestration in the second quarter of 2022 and allows the full 2% sequestration thereafter until 2030. To offset the temporary suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2030, the sequestration will be 2.25% for the first half of the year, and 3% in the second half of the year. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several categories of healthcare providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. If we ever obtain regulatory approval and commercialization of ganaxolone, these laws may result in reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

In addition, legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of ganaxolone may be.

In the United States, the EU and other potentially significant markets for ganaxolone, there has been increasing legislative, regulatory, and enforcement interest with respect to drug pricing practices. There have been several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report to state agencies when they introduce new drugs to market with prices over a certain threshold, or when they increase the price of a drug over a certain threshold. Government authorities and third-party payers are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the EU will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for ganaxolone in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in ganaxolone even if ganaxolone obtains marketing approval.

We expect to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and if we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under that program or other governmental pricing programs that we participate in, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We expect to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data that we report on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of single-source and innovator multiple-source products, the best price for each drug which, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any entity in the United States in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts and other price concessions subject to certain exclusions. The Affordable Care Act made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective on April 1, 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the Affordable Care Act. On December 21, 2020, CMS issued a final regulation that modified existing Medicaid Drug Rebate Program regulations to permit reporting multiple Best Price figures with regard to value-based purchasing arrangements (beginning in 2022); provide definitions for “line extension,” “new formulation,” and related terms with the practical effect of expanding the scope of drugs considered to be line extensions (beginning in 2022); and revise AMP and Best Price exclusions with respect to manufacturer-sponsored patient benefit programs, specifically regarding inapplicability of such exclusions in the context of PBM “accumulator” programs (beginning in 2023). Our failure to comply with the aforementioned price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results. In addition, statutory and regulatory changes or other agency action regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program could negatively affect our financial results or expand our rebate liability. For example, Congress could enact legislation that would extend rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to all Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP utilization.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program also participate in the 340B program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as certain hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The Affordable Care Act expanded the list of covered entities to include certain children’s hospitals, free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, but exempted “orphan drugs” from the ceiling price requirements for these covered entities. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula based on the average manufacturer price and unit rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid unit rebate amount under the Affordable Care Act or other legislation or regulation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations if we successfully commercialize one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval.

HRSA issued a final regulation, effective January 1, 2019, regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities. HRSA also has implemented a ceiling price reporting requirement, pursuant to which manufacturers must report the 340B ceiling prices for their covered outpatient drugs to HRSA on a quarterly basis. HRSA then publishes those prices to 340B covered entities. Moreover, under a final regulation effective January 13, 2021, HRSA newly established an administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process for claims by covered entities that a manufacturer has engaged in overcharging, including claims that a manufacturer has limited the covered entity’s ability to purchase covered outpatient drugs at or below the 340B ceiling price, and by manufacturers that a covered entity violated the prohibitions against diversion or duplicate discounts, including claims that an individual does not qualify as a patient for 340B Program purposes and claims that a covered entity is not eligible for the 340B Program. Such claims are to be resolved through an ADR panel of government officials rendering a decision that can be appealed to a federal court. An ADR proceeding could subject a manufacturer to onerous procedural requirements and could result in additional liability. In addition, changes to legislation, regulations, or guidance could modify 340B program compliance or expand discount liability.

Federal law also requires that a company report average sales price information each quarter to CMS for certain categories of drugs that are payable under the Medicare Part B program. Manufacturers calculate the average sales price based on a statutorily defined formula as well as regulations and interpretations of the statute by CMS. CMS uses these submissions to determine payment rates for drugs under Medicare Part B. Starting in 2023, manufacturers must pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologics, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages, for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of 10 percent of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. Manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount. Congress further could enact a Medicare Part B inflation rebate, under which manufacturers would owe additional rebates if the average sales price of a drug were to increase faster than the pace of inflation.  

In addition, manufacturers are required to provide to CMS a 70% discount on brand name prescription drugs utilized by Medicare Part D beneficiaries when those beneficiaries are in the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit design. Congress could enact legislation that sunsets this discount program and replaces it with a new manufacturer discount program.  Under either program, civil monetary penalties could be applied if a manufacturer fails to provide these discounts in the amount of 125 percent of the discount that was due. Congress further could enact a Medicare Part D inflation rebate, under which manufacturers would owe additional rebates if the average manufacturer price of a drug were to increase faster than the pace of inflation.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary among products and programs. The calculations are complex and are often subject to interpretation by the manufacturer, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts. Such interpretation can change and evolve over time. In the case of Medicaid pricing data, if a manufacturer becomes aware that its reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, the manufacturer is obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which a manufacturer is required to offer its products under the 340B program. Retroactive Medicaid rebates and 340B program refunds could become due as a result of these restatements.

In addition, if we are found to have knowingly submitted false average manufacturer price or best price information to the government, we may be liable for significant civil monetary penalties per item of false information. Our failure to submit monthly/quarterly average manufacturer price and best price data on a timely basis also could result in a significant civil monetary penalty per day for each day the information is late beyond the due date. And if we are found to have knowingly misclassified a drug (i.e., by knowingly classifying it as a generic drug for Medicaid Drug Rebate Program purposes, which are subject to lower rebates, instead of a single-source or innovator multiple-source drug), we could be subject to civil monetary penalties no greater than two times the difference between the rebates we should have paid and the rebates we actually paid, which penalties are in addition to the penalties discussed previously. Such failures also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, pursuant to which we would be participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. In the event that CMS terminates our rebate agreement, no federal payments would be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs.

If we are found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of our average sales price, the Medicare statute provides for significant civil monetary penalties for each misrepresentation for each day in which the misrepresentation was applied. Civil monetary penalties can also be applied if we are found to have knowingly and intentionally charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. A covered entity or association representing covered entities can also bring claims against us through HRSA’s 340B ADR process. HRSA could terminate our 340B program Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement for good cause, which would cause our Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement to be terminated, rendering federal funds for our covered outpatient drugs unavailable under Medicaid and Medicare Part B.  Finally, we note again that civil monetary penalties could apply if a manufacturer fails to provide discounts under the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program in the amount of 125 percent of the discount that was due.

CMS and the HHS OIG have pursued manufacturers that were alleged to have failed to report these data to the government in a timely manner. Governmental agencies may also make changes in program interpretations, requirements or conditions of participation, some of which may have implications for amounts previously estimated or paid. If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and consequently the 340B program, we cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found to be incomplete or incorrect.

In order to be eligible to have our products that we successfully commercialize paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we also would have to participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) pricing program. As part of this program, we would be obligated to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract under which we would be required to comply with standard government contract terms and conditions and charge a price that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price (FCP) to four federal agencies (VA, Department of Defense (DOD), Public Health Service, and U.S. Coast Guard).

The FCP is based on the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (Non-FAMP), which we would be required to calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law and related contract terms, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant civil monetary penalties for each item of false information. The FSS pricing program and contract also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements.

If we successfully commercialize one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, we also would participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we would be required to pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP. We would be required to list our innovator products on a Tricare Agreement in order for them to be eligible for DOD formulary inclusion. If it were concluded that we had overcharged the government in connection with our FSS contract or Tricare Agreement, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we would be required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges could result in allegations against us under the FCA and /or other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and/or having to respond to a government investigation or enforcement action, could be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Laws and regulations governing international operations may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling product candidates outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.

As we seek to expand our operations outside of the United States, we must comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The creation and implementation of international business practices compliance programs is costly and such programs are difficult to enforce, particularly where reliance on third parties is required.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits any United States individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political

party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring such companies to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA are enforced primarily by the DOJ. The SEC is involved with enforcement of the books and records provisions of the FCPA.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain foreign nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. Our expanding presence outside of the United States will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling ganaxolone outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial penalties, including suspension or debarment from government contracting. Violation of the FCPA can result in significant civil and criminal penalties. Indictment alone under the FCPA can lead to suspension of the right to do business with the United States government until the pending claims are resolved. Conviction of a violation of the FCPA can result in long-term disqualification as a government contractor. The termination of a government contract or relationship as a result of our failure to satisfy any of our obligations under laws governing international business practices would have a negative impact on our operations and harm our reputation and ability to procure government contracts. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on United States exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

Our relationships with customers and third-party payers will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with healthcare professionals, third-party payers, patients and others will expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims, and other healthcare laws and regulations that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payers, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our operations (including our marketing, promotion, educational programs, pricing, and relationships with healthcare providers or other entities, among other things) and expose us to areas of risk including the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties are compliant with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve the expenditure of appropriate, and possibly significant, resources. Nonetheless, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations 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 of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare & Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business, which could impose significant regulatory hurdles on our business.

HIPAA imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA imposes privacy and security obligations on covered entity health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, as well as their “business associates”—certain persons or entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a specified service on behalf of a covered entity. We may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA, other than potentially with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly receive individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. In addition, numerous other federal and state laws and regulations govern privacy and security, including state data breach notification laws, state health information and/or genetic privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws

(e.g., Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Compliance with these laws is difficult, constantly evolving, and time consuming. Federal regulators, state attorneys general, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been and will likely continue to be active in this space.

Furthermore, states are constantly adopting new laws or amending existing laws relating to the data privacy and security and consumer protection, requiring attention to frequently changing regulatory requirements. For example, in California, the CCPA establishes certain requirements for data use and sharing transparency and creates new data privacy rights for California residents. The CCPA and its implementing regulations have already been amended multiple times since their enactment. In November 2020, California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) ballot initiative which introduced significant amendments to the CCPA and established and funded a dedicated California privacy regulator, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). The amendments introduced by the CPRA go into effect on January 1, 2023, and new implementing regulations are expected to be introduced by the CPPA. Failure to comply with the CCPA may result in, among other things, significant civil penalties and injunctive relief, or potential statutory or actual damages. In addition, California residents have the right to bring a private right of action in connection with certain types of incidents. These claims may result in significant liability and potential damages. We implemented processes to manage compliance with the CCPA and continue to assess the impact of the CPRA, and other state legislation, on our business as additional information and guidance becomes available.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also sets expectations for failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure, or failing to provide a level of security commensurate to promises made to individual about the security of their personal information (such as in a privacy notice) may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. With respect to privacy, the FTC also sets expectations that companies honor the privacy promises made to individuals about how the company handles consumers’ personal information; any failure to honor promises, such as the statements made in a privacy policy or on a website, may also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act. While we do not intend to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the FTC has the power to enforce promises as it interprets them, and events that we cannot fully control, such as data breaches, may be result in FTC enforcement. Enforcement by the FTC under the FTC Act can result in civil penalties or enforcement actions.

Similarly, there are a number of legislative proposals in the EU, the United States (at both the federal and state level), as well as in other jurisdictions that could change existing obligations, and/or impose new obligations or limitations in areas affecting our business. These laws and regulations are evolving and subject to interpretation, and may impose limitations on our activities or otherwise adversely affect our business. In addition, some countries are considering or have passed legislation implementing data protection requirements or requiring local storage and processing of data or similar requirements that could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services and research activities. These laws and regulations, as well as any associated claims, inquiries, or investigations or any other government actions may lead to unfavorable outcomes including increased compliance costs, delays or impediments in the development of new products, negative publicity, increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention, and remedies that harm our business, including fines or demands or orders that we modify or cease existing business practices.

If we, our agents, or our third party partners fail to comply or are alleged to have failed to comply with these or other applicable data protection and privacy laws and regulations, or if we were to experience a data breach involving personal information, we could be subject to government enforcement actions or private lawsuits. Any associated claims, inquiries, or investigations or other government actions could lead to unfavorable outcomes that have a material impact on our business including through significant penalties or fines, monetary judgments or settlements including criminal and civil liability for us and our officers and directors, increased compliance costs, delays or impediments in the development of new products, negative publicity, increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention, or other remedies that harm our business, including orders that we modify or cease existing business practices.

In addition, the EU’s legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data security continues to evolve. There has been increased attention to privacy and data security issues that could potentially affect our business, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which imposes penalties up to 4% of annual global turnover for breaches of related obligations.

In the event we enroll patients in our ongoing or future clinical trials in the European Economic Area (EEA), we will be subject to the additional privacy restrictions imposed by the GDPR, including restrictions relating to the collection, use, storage, transfer, and other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals in the EEA as governed by the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the individual EEA countries. The GDPR imposes several requirements on companies that process personal data, with especially strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA, including to the U.S, and fines and penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the individual EEA countries. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. The obligations under the GDPR may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with any EEA activities. Further, the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to future data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. The European Commission has adopted an Adequacy Decision concerning the level of data protection in the United Kingdom. Personal data may now flow freely from the EEA to the United Kingdom, however, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the United Kingdom no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection.

Because of the remote work policies we implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic, information that is normally protected, including company confidential information, may be less secure. Cybersecurity and data security threats continue to evolve and raise the risk of incidents, including breaches, that could affect our operations or compromise our business information or sensitive personal information, including health data. With the ever-changing threat landscape, and while we have implemented security measures to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, there can be no assurance that such measures will prevent service interruptions or security breaches that could adversely affect our business.

We may also need to collect more extensive health-related information from our employees to manage our workforce. If we or our third party partners fail to comply or are alleged to have failed to comply with applicable data protection and privacy laws and regulations, and related employment rules, or if we were to experience a data breach involving personal information, we could be subject to government enforcement actions, fines, or private lawsuits.

In addition, our business could be adversely impacted if our ability to transfer personal data outside of the EEA or Switzerland is restricted, which could adversely impact our operating results. For example, in July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the Court of Justice, declared the Privacy Shield to be an invalid data transfer mechanism and confirmed that the Model Clauses remain valid and in June 2021, the European Commission published updated versions of the Model Clauses, which must be incorporated into new and existing agreements within prescribed timeframes in order to continue to lawfully transfer personal data outside of the EU. This Decision (Decision 2018/1250) invalid, which could adversely impact our ability to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S. The Court of Justice further ruled that in order to transfer data outside of the EU, under the existing mechanism known as the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), the exporter and the importer must ensure that the importer may guarantee a level of personal data protection in the importing country’s level of protection must be adequate that is essentially equivalent to that of the EEA. Compliance with data transfer obligations involves documenting detailed analyses of data access and protection laws in the countries in which data importers are located, which can be costly and time-consuming. Data importers must also expend resources in analyzing their ability to comply with transfer obligations, including implementing new safeguards and controls to further protect personal data.

On September 8, 2020, the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) of Switzerland issued an opinion concluding that the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework does not provide an adequate level of

protection for data transfers from Switzerland to the United States. The FDPIC also found that SCCs may still be legally adequate at an individual level provided that they can pass a risk assessment conducted by the FDPIC. If the level of protection in the U.S. or any other importing country is called into question under the SCCs, this could further impact our ability to transfer data outside of the EU or Switzerland.

The impact of Brexit on the on-going validity in the UK of current EU authorizations for medicinal products, whether granted through the centralized procedure, decentralized procedure, or mutual recognition, and on the future process for obtaining marketing authorization for pharmaceutical products manufactured or sold in the UK remains uncertain. Although the body of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement includes general terms which apply to medicinal products, greater detail on sector-specific issues is provided in an Annex to the Agreement. The Annex provides a framework for the recognition of GMP inspections and for the exchange and acceptance of official GMP documents. The regime does not, however, extend to procedures such as batch release certification. Among the changes that will now occur are that Great Britain, comprised of England, Scotland and Wales, will be treated as a third country. Northern Ireland will, with regard to EU regulations, continue to follow the EU regulatory rules. As part of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the EU and the UK will recognize GMP inspections carried out by the other Party and the acceptance of official GMP documents issued by the other Party. The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement also encourages, although it does not oblige, the parties to consult one another on proposals to introduce significant changes to technical regulations or inspection procedures. Among the areas of absence of mutual recognition are batch testing and batch release. The UK has unilaterally agreed to accept EU batch testing and batch release for a period of at least two years until January 1, 2023. However, the EU continues to apply EU laws that require batch testing and batch release to take place in the EU territory. This means that medicinal products that are tested and released in the UK must be retested and re-released when entering the EU market for commercial use. As regards marketing authorizations, Great Britain will have a separate regulatory submission process, approval process and a separate national MA. Northern Ireland will, however, continue to be covered by the marketing authorizations granted by the EC.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property rights or if our intellectual property rights are inadequate for our technology and product candidates, our competitive position could be harmed.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our technology and products. We rely on trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark laws, and confidentiality, licensing and other agreements with employees and third parties, all of which offer only limited protection. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and products that are important to our business.

The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally are highly uncertain, involve complex legal and factual questions and have in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents, including those patent rights licensed to us by third parties, are highly uncertain. The steps we or our licensors have taken to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to preclude misappropriation of our proprietary information or infringement of our intellectual property rights, both inside and outside the United States. Further, the examination process may require us or our licensors to narrow the claims for our pending patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained if these applications issue. The rights already granted under any of our currently issued patents or those licensed to us and those that may be granted under future issued patents may not provide us with the protection or competitive advantages we are seeking. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficient, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or superior to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be adversely affected. It is also possible that we or our licensors will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of our development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them.

With respect to patent rights, the ganaxolone compound and its original synthesis were published in the early 1990s and we do not own or license patent rights on the ganaxolone compound. We seek patent protection in the United States and internationally for synthetic methods for making ganaxolone, ganaxolone nanoparticles, which are used in certain oral solid, oral liquid, and IV dose formulations, other injectable and oral ganaxolone formulations, and methods of treatment using ganaxolone. We do not know whether any of our granted or issued patents will, or if any of our pending patent applications will grant as patents that will, effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. There is a risk that others, including companies that make generic pharmaceuticals, may develop ganaxolone for the same as similar uses as us, and that our patents will not effectively prevent them from commercializing their ganaxolone products. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or in some cases not at all, until they are issued as a patent. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Our pending applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, issued patents that we own or have licensed from third parties may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in the loss of patent protection, the narrowing of claims in such patents or the invalidity or unenforceability of such patents, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection for our technology and products. Protecting against the unauthorized use of our or our licensors’ patented technology, trademarks and other intellectual property rights is expensive, difficult and may in some cases not be possible. In some cases, it may be difficult or impossible to detect third-party infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, even in relation to issued patent claims, and proving any such infringement may be even more difficult.

Competitors may infringe our patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets or to determine the validity and scope of our own intellectual property rights or the proprietary rights of others. Also, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. These proceedings can be expensive and time consuming. Many of our current and potential competitors have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to defend their intellectual property rights than we can. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned or controlled by us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could harm our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products, all of which contain ganaxolone, if approved, and to use our related technologies. We may become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to one or more of our products, including interference or derivation proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue commercializing one or more of our products. However, we may not

be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Under certain circumstances, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing one or more of our products. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing one or more of our products or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar negative impact on our business.

While our product candidates are in preclinical studies and clinical trials, we believe that the use of our product candidates in these preclinical studies and clinical trials falls within the scope of the exemptions provided by 35 U.S.C. Section 271(e) in the United States, which exempts from patent infringement liability activities reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA (Federal Development Patent Infringement Exemption). As our product candidates progress toward commercialization, the possibility of a patent infringement claim against us increases. While ganaxolone itself is off patent, we attempt to ensure that our product candidates and the methods we employ to manufacture ganaxolone do not infringe other parties’ patents and other proprietary rights. There can be no assurance they do not, however, and competitors or other parties may assert that we infringe their proprietary rights in any event.

In September 2020, Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. (Ovid) contacted us and disclosed that it owns a U.S. issued patent that includes claims that encompass our product candidates for the treatment of CDD. We entered into an exclusive license agreement with Ovid for their patents that include claims that encompass ganaxolone for the treatment of CDD in the United States of America, the EEA, the United Kingdom and Switzerland (including their respective territories).

We are also aware of a pending patent application by Ovid in the same patent family that includes claims that encompass our product candidate for the treatment of SE. This pending patent application is in the early stages of examination at the USPTO. It is possible that this pending patent application may issue as a patent with claims that encompass our product candidate for the treatment of SE, in which case, if we do not license these patents and we receive FDA approval to market ganaxolone in SE, we would be subject to the risk that Ovid may file a lawsuit against us alleging infringement on any such patent that was issued.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates and any future product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our or our licensors’ intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws and practices of some foreign countries, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. For example, novel formulations and methods of medical treatment and manufacturing processes may not be patentable in certain jurisdictions, and the requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. Furthermore, generic drug manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our patents, requiring us to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. Generic drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for, and launch generic versions of our products. Many countries, including EU countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under certain circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of our patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from our intellectual property.

We may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions into or within the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products, and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing with us in these jurisdictions.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products for an adequate amount of time.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, such as our product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. For example, certain patents licensed to us by CyDex that relate to Captisol®, which is used in some of our product candidates, have expired, and sulfobutylether beta-cyclodextrin compounds that are similar to CyDex’s Captisol® are available from other suppliers. It is possible that others may seek to develop ganaxolone formulations using sulfobutylether beta-cyclodextrin compounds obtained from such other suppliers.

We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits under certain circumstances a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of a patent. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any analogous regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Changes in patent laws could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involve technological and legal complexity, and obtaining and enforcing pharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. For example, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and patents we may obtain in the future. Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Leahy-Smith Act) includes a number of provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO and may become involved in derivation, reexamination, inter-partes review or post-grant review proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of our licensors. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submissions, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitive position would be adversely affected.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Some of our employees were previously employed at universities or at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees, including each member of our senior management, executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such third party. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We rely on government funding for certain aspects of our research and development activities and we may develop intellectual property through such activities and therefore may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S. based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

In September 2020, we entered into the BARDA Contract for the completion of pre-clinical and clinical development activities for IV administered ganaxolone for the treatment of RSE. We may generate intellectual property rights through the use of this U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act), and implementing regulations. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property in the specified manner and within specified time limits. These time limits have recently been changed by regulation, and may change in the future. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable

but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

Risks Related to our Business Operations and Ownership of our Common Stock

The COVID-19 pandemic could continue to adversely affect our business and our ability to conduct and complete clinical trials.

The continued global spread of COVID-19, including the Omicron variant, has impacted our clinical operations and timelines. For example, our Phase 3 RAISE trial is conducted in hospitals, including intensive care units and academic medical centers, which have experienced high rates of COVID-19 admissions. Several academic medical centers and intensive care units participating in the RAISE trial have experienced COVID-related difficulties, including staff turnover and the need to devote significant resources to patients with COVID-19, which has resulted in site initiation and enrollment delays for the RAISE trial. Given these COVID-19-related challenges and our recent interruption in drug supply as described above, we now expect our top-line data readout for the RAISE trial to be available in the second half of 2023. In addition, our ganaxolone clinical trials in the outpatient setting may be negatively impacted if patients and their caregivers do not want to participate while the COVID-19 pandemic persists. The duration and severity of the pandemic and its long-term impact on our business are uncertain at this time.

If a patient participating in one of our clinical trials contracts COVID-19, this could negatively impact the data readouts from these trials; for example, the patient may be unable to participate further (or may have to limit participation) in our clinical trial, the patient may show a different efficacy assessment than if the patient had not been infected, or the patient could experience an AE that could be attributed to our product candidate.

There is also a risk that clinical supplies of our product candidates may be significantly delayed or may become unavailable as a result of COVID-19 and the resulting impact on our suppliers’ labor forces and operations, including as a result of governmental restrictions on business operations and the movement of people and goods in an effort to curtail the spread of the virus. There can be no assurance that we would be able to timely implement any mitigation plans. Disruptions in our supply chain, whether as a result of restricted travel, quarantine requirements or otherwise, could negatively impact clinical supplies of our product candidates, which could materially adversely impact our clinical trial and development timelines.

The global spread of COVID-19 has also led to severe disruption and volatility in the global capital markets, which could increase our cost of capital and adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets in the future. The potential exists for the continued spread of COVID-19 to cause an economic slowdown or recession or cause other unpredictable events, each of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak and the actions to contain the outbreak or treat its impact, among others. Moreover, the COVID-19 outbreak has begun to have indeterminable adverse effects on general commercial activity and the world economy, and our business and results of operations could be adversely affected to the extent that COVID-19 or any other pandemic harms the global economy generally.

We will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 113 full-time and no part-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, or as a result of any future acquisitions, we will need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other resources. In addition, it may become more cost effective to bring in house certain resources currently outsourced to consultants and other third-parties. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place may not be adequate to support our future growth. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

As our operations expand, we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners, suppliers and other third parties. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize ZTALMY and, if approved, ganaxolone in other indications we are currently developing, and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and sales and marketing personnel. Our failure to accomplish any of these tasks could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyberattacks or a deficiency in our cybersecurity or those of any business partners.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our CROs and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from, among other things, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyberattacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, loss of funds or information from phishing or other fraudulent schemes, or attachments to emails. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Such an event could cause interruption of our operations or loss of our funds and have a negative financial consequence on our business. In addition, our systems safeguard important confidential personal data regarding patients enrolled in our clinical trials. If a disruption event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of data relating to completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and cause us to incur significant additional costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, misappropriation of funds to unintended recipients, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential, proprietary or personal information, we could incur material legal claims and liabilities and damage to our reputation and the further development of ganaxolone could be delayed. Additionally, breach remediation costs may be significant.

The market price of our stock has been, and may continue to be, highly volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Historically, the trading price of our common stock has been highly volatile, and it is likely that such price will continue to be volatile in the future. The trading price of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section, these factors could include:

In addition, the stock market in general, the Nasdaq Global Market and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The realization of any of these risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in these “Risk Factors,” could have a dramatic and material adverse impact on the market price of our common stock.

Insiders have substantial influence over us and could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

We estimate that our executive officers, directors and holders of 5% or more of our capital stock collectively beneficially own approximately 46.8% of our voting stock. Upon conversion of all our outstanding convertible preferred stock, as of December 31, 2021, our executive officers, directors and holders of 5% or more of our capital stock collectively would beneficially own approximately 48.1% of our voting stock. This concentration of ownership could harm the market price of our common stock by delaying, deferring or preventing a strategic transaction, even if such a transaction would benefit other stockholders. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with your interests or the interests of other stockholders and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for their common stock, and might negatively affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future, which may cause our results to fall below the expectations of securities analysts, stockholders and investors.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. These factors include, but are not limited to:

As a strategic response to changes in the competitive environment, we may from time to time make pricing, service, technology or marketing decisions or business or technology acquisitions that could have a material adverse

effect on our operating results. Due to any of these factors, our operating results may fall below the expectations of securities analysts, stockholders and investors in any future period, which may cause our stock price to decline.

Some provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our fourth amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as amended (Certificate of Incorporation) and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders, or remove our current management. These include provisions that:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, who are responsible for appointing the members of our management. Because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), which prohibits, with some exceptions, stockholders owning in excess of 15.0% of our outstanding capital stock from merging or combining with us.

Our Certificate of Incorporation contains exclusive forum provisions, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents.

Our Certificate of Incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall be the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, employees or agents to us or our stockholders, (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, or (d) any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, in each such

case subject to such Court of Chancery’s having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants therein.

For the avoidance of doubt, the exclusive forum provisions described above do not apply to any claims arising under the Securities Act or under the Exchange Act. Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, and Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder.

The choice of forum provisions in our Certificate of Incorporation may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees and agents even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. The applicable courts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. With respect to the provision making the Court of Chancery the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions, stockholders who do bring a claim in the Court of Chancery could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim, particularly if they do not reside in or near Delaware. Finally, if a court were to find these provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could have a material adverse effect on the company.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

​

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal offices occupy approximately 22,500 square feet of leased office space in Radnor, Pennsylvania pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in 2025. We believe that our facilities are suitable and adequate to meet our current needs. We may add new facilities or expand existing facilities as we add employees, and we believe that suitable additional or substitute space will be available as needed to accommodate any such expansion of our operations.

​

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, we may become subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, and we are not aware of any pending or threatened legal proceedings against us that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

​

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

​

PART II

Item 5. Market for Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “MRNS.”

Holders of Record

As of March 18, 2022, there were approximately 15 holders of record of shares of our common stock. This number does not reflect the beneficial holders of our common stock who hold shares in street name through brokerage accounts or other nominees.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

​

Information regarding securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans is incorporated by reference into the information in Part III, Item 12 of this Form 10-K.

​

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

We did not issue any equity securities during the year ended December 31, 2021 that were not registered under the Securities Act and that have not otherwise been described in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or a Periodic Report on Form 8-K.

​

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Item 6. Reserved

​

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our financial statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. You should read “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of products for patients suffering from rare genetic epilepsies and other seizure disorders. On March 18, 2022, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved our new drug application (NDA) for the use of ZTALMY® (ganaxolone) oral suspension for the treatment of seizures associated with cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder (CDD) in patients 2 years of age and older. This is our first FDA-approved product which we plan to commercialize in the United States. We also plan to continue to develop ganaxolone for other rare genetic epilepsies and for a number of additional indications including seizure disorders. While the precise mechanism by which ganaxolone exerts its therapeutic effects in the treatment of seizures associated with CDD is unknown, its anticonvulsant effects are thought to result from positive allosteric modulation of the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A) receptor in the Central Nervous System (CNS). Ganaxolone is being developed in formulations for two different routes of administration: intravenous (IV) and oral. Ganaxolone is a synthetic analog of allopregnanolone, an endogenous neurosteroid. The different formulations are intended to maximize potential therapeutic applications of ganaxolone for adult and pediatric patient populations, in both acute and chronic care, and for both in-patient and self-administered settings. Ganaxolone acts at both synaptic and extrasynaptic GABA_A receptors, a target known for its anti-seizure, antidepressant and anxiolytic potential.

​

Our operations to date have consisted primarily of organizing and staffing our company, developing ganaxolone, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, and raising capital. We have funded our operations primarily through sales of equity and debt securities. At December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $122.9 million. We have no products currently available for sale, have incurred operating losses since inception, have not generated any product sales revenue and have not achieved profitable operations. We incurred a net loss of $98.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. Our accumulated deficit as of December 31, 2021 was $410.7 million, and we expect to continue to incur substantial losses in future periods. We anticipate that our operating expenses will increase substantially as we continue to advance our clinical-stage product candidate, ganaxolone.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

We had cash and cash equivalents of $122.9 million at December 31, 2021.  We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents on hand as of December 31, 2021, including the previously received $22 million contingent refundable upfront fee, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses, capital expenditure requirements, and maintain the minimum cash balance required under our debt facility into the fourth quarter of 2022. However, we will need to secure additional funding in the future, from one or more equity or debt financings, government funding, collaborations, licensing transactions, other commercial transactions or other sources, such as our Priority Review Voucher, in order to carry out all of our planned research and development activities with respect to ganaxolone.

COVID-19

The continued global spread of COVID-19, including the Omicron variant, has impacted our clinical operations and timelines. For example, our Phase 3 trial, the Randomized Therapy In Status Epilepticus Trial (RAISE trial), a pivotal Phase 3 trial in refractory status epilepticus (RSE) patients, is conducted in hospitals, including intensive care units and academic medical centers, which have experienced high rates of COVID-19 admissions. Several academic medical centers and intensive care units participating in the RAISE trial have experienced COVID-related difficulties, including staff turnover and the need to devote significant resources to patients with COVID-19, which has resulted in site initiation and enrollment delays for the RAISE trial. Given these COVID-19-related challenges and our recent interruption in drug supply, we now expect our top-line data readout for the RAISE trial to be available in the second half of 2023. In addition, our ganaxolone clinical trials in the outpatient setting may be negatively impacted if patients and their caregivers do not want to participate while the COVID-19 pandemic persists. The duration and severity of the pandemic and its long-term impact on our business are uncertain at this time.

Reverse stock split

On September 23, 2020, we effected a 1-for-4 reverse split of shares of our common stock (Reverse Split), as approved by our board of directors and stockholders. The par value per share of our common stock was not adjusted as a result of the Reverse Split, and our authorized shares of common stock was reduced to 150,000,000. All of the share and per share amounts included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been adjusted to reflect the Reverse Split.

Financial Overview

Federal Contract Revenue

In September 2020, we entered into a contract (BARDA Contract) with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Under the BARDA Contract, we received an award of up to an estimated $51 million for development of RSE. The BARDA Contract provides for funding to include support, on a cost-sharing basis, for completion of the RAISE trial, funding of pre-clinical studies to evaluate IV-administered ganaxolone as an effective treatment for RSE due to chemical nerve gas agent exposure, and funding of certain ganaxolone manufacturing scale-up and regulatory activities.

The BARDA Contract consists of an approximately two-year base period-during which BARDA will provide approximately $21 million of funding for the RAISE trial on a cost share basis and funding of additional preclinical studies of ganaxolone in nerve agent exposure models. Following successful completion of the RAISE trial and preclinical studies in the base period, the BARDA Contract provides for approximately $30 million of additional BARDA funding for three options in support of ganaxolone manufacturing, supply chain, clinical, regulatory and toxicology activities. Under the BARDA Contract, we will be responsible for cost sharing in the amount of

approximately $33 million and BARDA will be responsible for approximately $51 million, if all development options are completed. The contract period-of-performance (base period plus option exercises) is up to approximately five years.

We recognize federal contract revenue from the BARDA Contract in the period in which the allowable research and development expenses are incurred. We expect federal contract revenue to increase as the costs associated with our RAISE trial increase.

License and Collaboration Revenue

In July 2021, we entered into a collaboration agreement (Orion Collaboration Agreement) with Orion Corporation (Orion). Under the terms of the Orion Collaboration Agreement, we granted Orion an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to certain our intellectual property rights with respect to commercializing biopharmaceutical products incorporating ganaxolone (Licensed Products) in the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom and Switzerland (collectively, the Territory) for the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of certain human diseases, disorders or conditions (Field), initially in the indications of CDD, tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) and RSE.

Under the terms of the Orion Collaboration Agreement, we received a €25.0 million ($29.6 million) upfront payment from Orion in July 2021. In connection with the upfront fee, we agreed to provide Orion with the results of a planned genotoxicity study on the M2 metabolite of ganaxolone, a “Combined Micronucleus & Comet study in vivo.” In the event that the results of such study were positive, based on the criteria set forth in the study’s protocol, Orion would have had the right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement within ninety (90) days after its receipt of the final report of such study, in which case we would have been required to refund Orion seventy-five percent (75%) of the upfront fee. In February 2022, the verified draft study report showed that no genotoxicity was found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. As such, but subject to confirmation of such results in the final study report expected by the end of the second quarter of 2022, we will not be required to refund Orion any of the upfront fee and Orion will not have a right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement as a result of the study’s findings.

We are eligible to receive up to an additional €97 million in R&D reimbursement and cash milestone payments based on specific clinical and commercial achievements. Also, as part of the overall arrangement, we have agreed to supply the Licensed Products to Orion at an agreed upon price.

We identified the following commitments under the arrangement: (i) exclusive rights to develop, use, sell, have sold, offer for sale and import any product comprised of Licensed Product (License); (ii) development and regulatory activities (Development and Regulatory Activities); and (iii) requirement to supply Orion with the Licensed Product at an agreed upon price (Supply of Licensed Product). We determined that these three commitments represent distinct performance obligations for purposes of recognizing revenue and will recognize license and collaboration revenue or a reduction of expense as we fulfill each performance obligation.

Research and Development Expenses

Our research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for the development of ganaxolone, which include:

We expense research and development costs when we incur them. We record costs for some development activities, such as clinical trials, based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using data such as patient enrollment, clinical site activations and information our vendors provide to us.

We have and will incur substantial costs beyond our present and planned clinical trials in order to file an NDA and Supplemental New Drug Applications (NDAs), or an MAA outside the US, for ganaxolone for various clinical indications, and in each case, the nature, design, size and cost of further clinical trials and other studies will depend in large part on the outcome of preceding studies and trials and discussions with regulators. It is difficult to determine with certainty the costs and duration of our current or future clinical trials and preclinical studies, or if, when or to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of ganaxolone if we obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for ganaxolone. The duration, costs and timing of clinical trials and development of ganaxolone will depend on a variety of factors, including the uncertainties of future clinical trials and preclinical studies, uncertainties in clinical trial enrollment rate and significant and changing government regulation.

In addition, the probability of success for our clinical programs will depend on numerous factors, including competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. See “Risk Factors.” Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance, if approved, among physicians, patients, healthcare payers and the medical community. We will determine which programs to pursue and how much to fund each program in response to the scientific and clinical success, as well as an assessment of commercial potential.

General and Administrative Expenses

​

General and administrative expenses consist principally of salaries and related costs for executive and other administrative personnel and consultants, including stock-based compensation and travel expenses. Other general and administrative expenses include professional fees for legal, patent review, consulting and accounting services. General and administrative expenses are expensed when incurred. We expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as a result of employee hiring and our scaling-up of operations commensurate with supporting more advanced clinical trials and for commercial infrastructure. These increases will likely include increased costs for insurance, hiring of additional personnel, outside consultants, and legal counsel and accountants, among other expenses.

Cost of collaboration revenue

Cost of collaboration revenue represents a one-time fee paid to Purdue Neuroscience Company related to our license agreement. This fee was paid in conjunction with the Orion Collaboration Agreement.

Interest Income

Interest income consists principally of interest income earned on cash and cash equivalent and investment balances.

Interest Expense

Interest expense consists of interest expense and amortization of debt discount related to our Notes Payable.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income and expense consists principally of gains or losses on disposal of fixed assets held for sale, foreign currency translation, and fair value adjustments.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses increased to $37.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $18.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The primary drivers of the increase were $6.5 million in increased personnel costs, $4.7 million in increased noncash stock-based compensation, $4.9 million in increased commercialization preparation, $1.1 million contract acquisition costs related to the Orion Collaboration Agreement, $0.6 million in increased legal fees and $1.0 million of other administrative expenses. Of the increased noncash stock-based compensation, $2.1 million was due to modifications of stock options recorded in the first quarter of 2021 in connection with a severance agreement with our former Chief Financial Officer.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since inception, we have incurred net losses and negative cash flows from our operations. We incurred a net loss of $98.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. Our cash used in operating activities was $55.5 million for year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $60.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. Historically, we have financed our operations principally through the sale of common stock, notes payable, preferred stock and convertible debt. At December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $122.9 million.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents on hand as of December 31, 2021, including the previously received $22 million contingent refundable upfront fee received in connection with the Orion Agreement, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses, capital expenditure requirements, and maintain the minimum cash balance required under our debt facility into the fourth quarter of 2022. As a result, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern through the one-year period from the date of filing of this 10-K. However, we will need to secure additional funding in the future, from one or more equity or debt financings, government funding, collaborations, licensing transactions, other commercial transactions or other sources, such as our Priority Review Voucher, in order to carry out all of our planned commercialization and research and development activities with respect to ganaxolone.

European Commercialization Agreement

On July 30, 2021, we entered into the Orion Collaboration Agreement, whereby Orion received exclusive rights to commercialize the oral and IV dose formulations of ganaxolone in the European Economic Area, United Kingdom and Switzerland in multiple seizure disorders, including CDD, TSC and RSE. Under the agreement, we received a €25 million ($29.6 million) upfront fee and are eligible to receive up to an additional €97 million in R&D reimbursement and

cash milestone payments based on specific clinical and commercial achievements, as well as tiered royalty payments based on net sales ranging from the low double digits to the high teens for the oral programs and the low double-digits to the low twenties for the IV programs. In connection with the upfront fee, we agreed to provide Orion with the results of an ongoing genotoxicity study on the M2 metabolite of ganaxolone, a “Combined Micronucleus & Comet study in vivo.” In the event that the results of such study were positive, based on the criteria set forth in the study’s protocol, Orion would have had the right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement within ninety (90) days after its receipt of the final report of such study, in which case we would have been required to refund Orion seventy-five percent (75%) of the upfront fee. In February 2022, the verified draft study report showed that no genotoxicity was found, as measured by formation of micronuclei in the bone marrow or comet morphology in the liver. As such, but subject to confirmation of such results in the final study report expected by the end of the second quarter of 2022, we will not be required to refund Orion any of the upfront fee and Orion will not have a right to terminate the Orion Collaboration Agreement as a result of the study’s findings.

Oaktree Credit Agreement

On May 11, 2021 (Closing Date), we entered into a Credit Agreement and Guaranty (as amended by that certain letter agreement on May 17, 2021, the Credit Agreement) with Oaktree Fund Administration, LLC, as administrative agent and the lenders party thereto that provides for a five-year senior secured term loan facility in an aggregate original principal amount of up to $125.0 million available to us in five tranches (collectively, the Term Loans):

The Term Loans will bear interest at a fixed per annum rate (subject to increase during an event of default) of 11.50% and are scheduled to mature on the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date (Maturity Date). In addition, at the time of funding of any tranche of the Term Loans, we are required to pay an upfront fee of 2.0% of the aggregate principal amount being funded. We are required to make quarterly interest payments until the Maturity Date. We are also required to make principal payments, which are payable in quarterly installments beginning on the last day of the first quarter ending after the third anniversary of the Closing Date in an amount equal to 5.0% of the aggregate amount of the Term Loans outstanding on the date of the first such quarterly principal payment and continuing until the Maturity Date, on which date all outstanding Term Loans and other amounts owed under the Credit Agreement will be required to be paid in full. A commitment fee of 75 basis points per annum will accrue on each of the tranche B, C and D commitments for the period beginning 120 days after the funding date of the tranche A-2 term loans until the applicable tranche is either funded or terminated.

BARDA Contract

In September 2020, we entered into the BARDA Contract with BARDA. Under the BARDA Contract, we received an award of up to an estimated $51 million for development of IV-administered ganaxolone for the treatment of RSE. The BARDA Contract provides for funding to support, on a cost-sharing basis, the completion of a Phase 3 clinical trial of IV-administered ganaxolone in patients with RSE, which covers the RAISE trial, funding of pre-clinical studies to evaluate IV-administered ganaxolone as an effective treatment for RSE due to chemical nerve gas agent exposure, and funding of certain ganaxolone manufacturing scale-up and regulatory activities.

The BARDA Contract consists of an approximately two-year base period during which BARDA will provide up to approximately $21 million of funding for the RAISE trial on a cost share basis and funding of additional preclinical studies of ganaxolone in nerve agent exposure models. Following successful completion of the RAISE trial and preclinical studies in the base period, the BARDA Contract provides for approximately $30 million of additional BARDA funding for three options in support of ganaxolone manufacturing, supply chain, clinical, regulatory and toxicology activities. Under the BARDA Contract, we will be responsible for cost sharing in the amount of approximately $33 million and BARDA will be responsible for approximately $51 million, if all development options are completed. The contract period-of-performance (base period plus option exercises) is up to approximately five years.

Equity Financings

In connection with the closing of an equity financing in December 2020, we issued a total of 5,000,000 shares of common stock in an underwritten public offering resulting in aggregate net proceeds, after underwriting discounts and commissions in the public offering and other estimated offering expenses, of $64.8 million.

In connection with the closing of an equity financing in June 2020, we issued a total of 4,600,000 shares of common stock in an underwritten public offering resulting in aggregate net proceeds, after underwriting discounts and commissions in the public offering and other estimated offering expenses, of $43.0 million.

Cash Flows

Operating Activities. Cash used in operating activities decreased to $55.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $60.9 million for the same period in 2020. The decrease was driven by the upfront payment related to our Orion Collaboration Agreement, increase in stock-based compensation expenses, and increase in the change in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other long term-liabilities, offset by increase in net loss.

Investing Activities. Cash used in investing activities during the year ended December 31, 2021 represents the maturities of $1.5 million of short-term investments, offset by $2.9 million related to investments in property and equipment. Cash used by investing activities during the year ended December 31, 2020 represents the maturities of $8.2 million of short-term investments, offset by $8.9 million in in purchases of short-term investments.

Financing Activities. Cash provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2021 includes $40.3 million in proceeds from notes payable net of issuance costs, and $1.2 million in proceeds from the exercise of stock options. Cash provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2020 includes $108.2 million in net proceeds from follow-on public offerings, the sale of common stock in connection with an equity distribution agreement and $1.0 million in proceeds from the exercise of stock options.

Funding Requirements

We have not achieved profitability since our inception, and we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future. We expect our cash expenditures to increase in the near term as we fund the commercialization of ZTALMY and our continuing and planned clinical trials for ganaxolone.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents on hand as of December 31, 2021, including the previously received $22 million contingent refundable upfront fee, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses, capital expenditure requirements, and maintain the minimum cash balance required under our debt facility into the fourth quarter of 2022. However, we will need to secure additional funding in the future, from one or more equity or debt financings, government funding, collaborations, licensing transactions, other commercial transactions or other sources, such as our Priority Review Voucher, in order to carry out all of our planned research and development activities with respect to ganaxolone. In order to meet these additional cash requirements, we may seek to sell additional equity or convertible debt securities that may result in dilution to our stockholders. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of convertible debt securities, these securities could have rights senior to those of our common stock and could contain covenants that restrict our operations. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional equity or debt financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Further, the continued spread of COVID-19 has also led to severe disruption and volatility in the global capital markets, which could increase our cost of capital and adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets in the future. Our failure to obtain sufficient funds on acceptable terms when needed could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Please see “Risk Factors” for additional risks associated with our substantial capital requirements.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We base this management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations on our financial statements, which we have prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. We evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued clinical trial expenses on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. You should consider your evaluation of our financial condition and results of operations with these policies, judgments and estimates in mind.

While we describe our significant accounting policies in the notes to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we believe the following accounting policies are the most critical to the judgments and estimates we use in the preparation of our financial statements.

Clinical Trial Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate our clinical trial expenses. Our clinical trial accrual process seeks to account for expenses resulting from our obligations under contracts with vendors, consultants and CROs and clinical site agreements in connection with conducting clinical trials. The financial terms of these contracts are subject to negotiations, which vary from contract to contract and may result in payment flows that do not match the periods over which materials or services are provided to us under such contracts. Our objective is to reflect the appropriate clinical trial expenses in our financial statements by matching the appropriate expenses with the period in which services and efforts are expended. We account for these expenses according to the progress of the trial as measured by subject progression and the timing of various aspects of the trial.

We determine accrual estimates based on estimates of the services received and efforts expended that take into account discussion with applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of completion of trials. During the course of a clinical trial, we adjust our clinical expense recognition if actual results differ from our estimates. We make estimates of our accrued expenses and prepaid assets as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on the facts and circumstances known to us at that time. Our clinical trial accrual and prepaid assets are dependent, in part, upon the receipt of timely and accurate reporting from CROs and other third-party vendors. Although we do not expect our estimates to differ materially from amounts we actually incur, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in us reporting amounts that are too high or too low for any particular period.

Orion Collaboration Agreement

The recognition of revenue related to the Orion Collaboration Agreement requires significant judgement and estimates. As discussed in Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, we are required to identify distinct performance obligations and subsequently allocate a portion of the transaction price to each performance obligation. We will recognize such revenue or expense, as applicable, as we fulfill these performance obligations. We identified three commitments in the Orion Collaboration Agreement that represent distinct performance obligations for purposes of recognizing revenue or reducing expense: (i) exclusive rights to develop, use, sell, have sold, offer for sale and import any product comprised of Licensed Product (License) (ii) development and regulatory activities (Development and

Regulatory Activities), and (iii) requirement to supply Orion with the Licensed Product at an agreed upon price (Supply of Licensed Product). We allocated the transaction price to the three performance obligations based on the estimated stand-alone selling prices at contract inception and we reevaluate the transaction price and the total estimated costs expected to be incurred to satisfy the performance obligations and adjust the deferred revenue at the end of each reporting period. Such changes will result in a change to the amount of collaboration revenue recognized and deferred revenue.

Significant estimates were used in the determination of the stand-along selling prices. The stand-alone selling price of the License was based on a discounted cash flow approach and considered several factors including, but not limited to, discount rate, development timeline, regulatory risks, estimated market demand and future revenue potential using an adjusted market approach. The stand-alone selling price of the Development and Regulatory Activities and the Supply of Licensed Product was estimated using the expected cost-plus margin approach.

​

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

We are a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are not required to provide the information under this item.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Our financial statements, accompanying notes and Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K beginning on page F-1, which are incorporated in this Item 8 by reference.

​

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

None.

​

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that information required to be disclosed in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures. Management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Based on such evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2021.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act.

Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over

financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management utilized the criteria established in the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) to assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021. Based on the assessment, management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, our internal control over financial reporting was effective.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rule 13a-15(d) and 15d-15(d) of the Exchange Act that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2021 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None

​

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections

​

Not applicable.

PART III

Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

We incorporate the information required by this Item 10 by reference to the definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of shareholders, to be filed with the SEC.

We have adopted a written Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (Code of Business Conduct) that applies to all of our employees, officers and directors. This Code of Business Conduct is designed to ensure that our business is conducted with integrity and in compliance with SEC regulations and Nasdaq listing standards. The Code of Business Conduct covers adherence to laws and regulations as well as professional conduct, including employment policies, conflicts of interest and the protection of confidential information. The Code of Business Conduct is available under “Governance Documents” within the “Investors & Media – Governance” section of our website at www.marinuspharma.com.

We intend to disclose any future amendments to, or waivers from, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that affect our directors or senior financial and executive officers within four business days of the amendment or waiver by posting such information on the website address and location specified above

​

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

We incorporate the information required by this Item 11 by reference to the definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of shareholders, to be filed with the SEC.

​

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

We incorporate the information required by this Item 12 by reference to the definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of shareholders, to be filed with the SEC.

​

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence.

We incorporate the information required by this Item 13 by reference to the definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of shareholders, to be filed with the SEC.

​

Item 14. Principal Accountants Fees and Services.

We incorporate the information required by this Item 14 by reference to the definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of shareholders, to be filed with the SEC.

​

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

(a)  Documents filed as part of this report:

1.     Financial Statements. The financial statements as set forth under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K are incorporated herein.

2.     Financial Statement Schedules. All financial statement schedules have been omitted because they are not applicable, not required, or the information is shown in the financial statements or related notes.

3.     Exhibits. See (b) below.

​