Diamedica Therapeutics (DMAC) Risk Analysis

General Rule. For any taxable year in which 75% or more of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the value of our assets (where the value of our total assets is determined based upon the market value of our common shares at the end of each quarter or other measuring period) are held for the production of, or produce, passive income, we would be characterized as a passive foreign investment company (PFIC) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The percentage of a corporation's assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income generally is determined based upon the average ratio of passive assets to total assets calculated at the end of each measuring period. Calculation of the value of assets at the end of each measuring period is generally made at the end of each of the four quarters that make up the company's taxable year, unless an election is made to use an alternative measuring period (such as a week or month). The "weighted average" of those periodic values is then used to determine the value of assets for the passive asset test for the taxable year. In proposed regulations section 1.1297-1(d)(2), a limited exception to the passive asset test valuation rules is provided for the treatment of working capital in order to take into account the short-term cash needs of operating companies. This new rule provides that an amount of cash held in a non-interest bearing account that is held for the present needs of an active trade or business and is no greater than the amount reasonably expected to cover 90 days of operating expenses incurred in the ordinary course of the trade or business of the foreign corporation (for example, accounts payable for ordinary operating expenses or employee compensation) is not treated as a passive asset. The Treasury Department and the IRS indicated that they continue to study the appropriate treatment of working capital for purposes of the passive asset test. PFIC Status Determination. The tests for determining PFIC status for any taxable year are dependent upon a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, including the value of our assets, the market price of our common shares, and the amount and type of our gross income. Based on these tests (i) we believe that we were a PFIC for the taxable year ended December 31, 2016, (ii) we do not believe that we were a PFIC for any of the taxable years ended December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2021, and (iii) we believe that we were a PFIC for the taxable years ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2023. Our status as a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made for each taxable year, and we cannot provide any assurance regarding our PFIC status for the taxable year ending December 31, 2024 or for future taxable years. U.S. shareholders who own our common shares for any period during which we are a PFIC (which we believe would currently only be those shareholders that held our common shares in the taxable year ended December 31, 2016, December 31, 2022 or December 31, 2023) will be required to file IRS Form 8621 for each tax year during which they hold our common shares, unless, after we are no longer a PFIC, any such shareholder makes the "purging election" discussed below. PFIC Consequences. If we are a PFIC for any year during a non-corporate U.S. shareholder's holding period of our common shares, and the U.S. shareholder does not make a Qualified Electing Fund election (QEF Election) or a "mark-to-market" election, both as described below, then such non-corporate U.S. shareholder generally will be required to treat any gain realized upon a disposition of our common shares, or any so-called "excess distribution" received on our common shares, as ordinary income, rather than as capital gain, and the preferential tax rate applicable to dividends received on our common shares would not be available. This income generally would be allocated over a U.S. shareholder's holding period with respect to our common shares and the amount allocated to prior years will be subject to tax at the highest tax rate in effect for that year and an interest charge would be imposed on the amount of deferred tax on the income allocated to prior taxable years. Pursuant to the specific provisions of the PFIC rules, a taxpayer may realize gain on the disposition of common shares if the securities are disposed of by a holder whose securities are attributed to the U.S. shareholder, if the securities are pledged as security for a loan, transferred by gift or death, or are subject to certain corporate distributions. Additionally, if we are a PFIC, a U.S. shareholder who acquires our common shares from a decedent would be denied normally available step-up in tax basis for our common shares to fair market value at the date of death but instead would have a tax basis equal to the lower of the fair market value of such common shares or the decedent's tax basis in such common shares. Proposed regulations, that are not yet effective, address domestic partnerships and S corporations that own stock in a PFIC for which a QEF election or "mark-to-market" election could be made. Currently, only the domestic partnership or S corporation (and not the partners or S corporation shareholders) can make these elections. The proposed regulations would reverse the current rule so that only the partners or S corporation shareholders - not the partnership or S corporation - could make the elections. These proposed regulations would only apply to partnership or S corporation shareholders' tax years beginning on or after the date they are issued in final form. QEF Election. A U.S. shareholder may avoid the adverse tax consequences described above by making a timely and effective QEF election. A U.S. shareholder who makes a QEF election generally must report, on a current basis, its share of our ordinary earnings and net capital gains, whether or not we distribute any amounts to our shareholders, and would be required to comply with specified information reporting requirements. Any gain subsequently recognized upon the sale by that U.S. shareholder of the common shares generally would be taxed as capital gain and the denial of the basis step-up at death described above would not apply. The QEF election is available only if the company characterized as a PFIC provides a U.S. shareholder with certain information regarding its earnings and capital gains, as required under applicable U.S. Treasury regulations. We intend to provide all information and documentation that a U.S. shareholder making a QEF election is required to obtain for U.S. federal income tax purposes (e.g., the U.S. shareholder's pro rata share of ordinary income and net capital gain, and a "PFIC Annual Information Statement" as described in applicable U.S. Treasury regulations). Mark-to-Market Election. As an alternative to a QEF Election, a U.S. shareholder may also mitigate the adverse tax consequences of PFIC status by timely making a "mark-to-market" election. A U.S. shareholder who makes the mark-to-market election generally must include as ordinary income each year the increase in the fair market value of the common shares and deduct from gross income the decrease in the value of such shares during each of its taxable years. Losses would be allowed only to the extent of the net mark-to-market gain accrued under the election. If a mark-to-market election with respect to our common shares is in effect on the date of a U.S. shareholder's death, the tax basis of the common shares in the hands of a U.S. shareholder who acquired them from a decedent will be the lesser of the decedent's tax basis or the fair market value of the common shares. A mark-to-market election may be made and maintained only if our common shares are regularly traded on a qualified exchange, including The Nasdaq Capital Market. Whether our common shares are regularly traded on a qualified exchange is an annual determination based on facts that, in part, are beyond our control. Accordingly, a U.S. shareholder might not be eligible to make a mark-to-market election to mitigate the adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a PFIC. Election Tax Risks. Certain economic risks are inherent in making either a QEF Election or a mark-to-market election. If a QEF Election is made, it is possible that earned income will be reported to a U.S. shareholder as taxable income and income taxes will be due and payable on such an amount. A U.S. shareholder of our common shares may pay tax on such "phantom" income, i.e., where income is reported to it pursuant to the QEF Election, but no cash is distributed with respect to such income. There is no assurance that any distribution or profitable sale will ever be made regarding our common shares, so the tax liability may result in a net economic loss. A mark-to-market election may result in significant share price gains in one year causing a significant income tax liability. This gain may be offset in another year by significant losses. If a mark-to-market election is made, this highly variable tax gain or loss may result in substantial and unpredictable changes in taxable income. The amount included in income under a mark-to-market election may be substantially greater than the amount included under a QEF election. Both the QEF and mark-to-market elections are binding on the U.S. shareholder for all subsequent years that the U.S. shareholder owns our shares unless permission to revoke the election is granted by the IRS. Purging Election. Although we generally will continue to be treated as a PFIC as to any U.S. shareholder if we are a PFIC for any year during a U.S. shareholder's holding period, if we cease to satisfy the requirements for PFIC classification, the U.S. shareholder may avoid PFIC classification for subsequent years if the U.S. shareholder elects to make a so-called "purging election," by recognizing income based on the unrealized appreciation in the common shares through the close of the tax year in which we cease to be a PFIC. When a foreign corporation no longer qualifies as a PFIC (due to a change in facts or law), the foreign corporation nonetheless retains its PFIC status with respect to a shareholder unless and until the shareholder makes an election under Code section 1298(b)(1) and regulations section 1.1298–3 (purging election) on IRS Form 8621 attached to the shareholder's tax return (including an amended return), or requests the consent of the IRS Commissioner to make a late election under Code section 1298(b)(1) and regulations section 1.1298–3(e) (late purging election) on Form 8621-A. RULES RELATING TO A PFIC ARE VERY COMPLEX. YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR TAX ADVISER CONCERNING THE RELATIVE MERITS AND THE ECONOMIC AND TAX IMPACT OF THE PFIC RULES TO YOUR INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMON SHARES AS A NON-ELECTING U.S. SHAREHOLDER, A U.S. SHAREHOLDER MAKING A QEF ELECTION, A U.S. SHAREHOLDER MAKING A MARK-TO-MARKET ELECTION, OR A U.S. SHAREHOLDER MAKING ANY AVAILABLE PURGING ELECTION. Should we be classified as a PFIC during a U.S. shareholder's holding period for our common shares, each such U.S. shareholder should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the possibility of making these elections and the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the acquisition, ownership and disposition of our common shares. In addition, the possibility of us being classified as a PFIC may deter certain U.S. investors from purchasing our common shares, which could have an adverse impact on the market price of our common shares and our ability to raise additional financing by selling equity securities, including our common shares.

Companies are facing scrutiny from regulators, investors, and other stakeholders related to their environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices and disclosure. For example, during 2022, the SEC proposed new climate disclosure rules, which, if adopted, would require new climate-related disclosure in SEC filings, including certain climate-related metrics and greenhouse gas emissions data, information about climate-related targets and goals, transition plans, if any, and extensive attestation requirements. In addition to requiring companies to quantify and disclose direct emissions data, the new rules also would require disclosure of climate impact arising from the operations and uses by the company's business partners and contractors and end-users of the company's products and/or services. We are currently assessing the impact of the new rules, if adopted as proposed, but at this time, we cannot predict the costs of implementation or any potential adverse impacts resulting from the new rules if adopted. However, we may incur increased costs relating to the assessment and disclosure of climate-related risks and increased litigation risks related to disclosures made pursuant to the new rules, either of which could materially and adversely affect our future results of operations and financial condition. Further, investor advocacy groups, investment funds and influential investors are also increasingly focused on these practices, especially as they relate to the environment, climate change, health and safety, supply chain management, diversity, labor conditions and human rights, both in our own operations and in our supply chain. Increased ESG-related compliance costs could result in material increases to our overall operational costs. Our ESG practices may not meet the standards of all of our stakeholders and advocacy groups may campaign for further changes. A failure, or perceived failure, to adapt to or comply with regulatory requirements or to respond to investor or stakeholder expectations and standards could negatively impact our business and reputation and have a negative impact on the trading price of our common shares.

We depend heavily on members of our management team and certain other key personnel, including in particular our clinical personnel. We also depend on our clinical collaborators and advisors, all of whom have outside commitments that may limit their availability to us. In addition, we believe that our future success will depend in large part upon our ability to attract and retain highly skilled scientific, managerial, medical, clinical and regulatory personnel, particularly as we continue to expand our activities and seek regulatory approvals for clinical trials and eventually our DM199 product candidate. We enter into agreements with scientific and clinical collaborators and advisors, key opinion leaders and academic partners in the ordinary course of our business. We also enter into agreements with physicians and institutions that will recruit patients into our clinical trials on our behalf in the ordinary course of our business. Notwithstanding these arrangements, we face significant competition for these types of personnel from other companies, research and academic institutions, government entities and other organizations. We cannot predict our success in hiring or retaining the personnel we require for our continued growth. The loss of the services of any of our key executive officers, clinical personnel and advisors could potentially harm our business, operating results or financial condition.

Even if DM199 or any future product candidate is successfully developed and receives regulatory approval, it may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payers, such as private insurers or governments and other funding parties. The degree of market acceptance for DM199 or any product candidate we develop will depend on a number of factors including, among others: - demonstration of sufficient clinical efficacy and safety;- the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects;- limitations or warnings contained in the product's approved labeling;- cost-effectiveness and availability of acceptable pricing;- the availability of alternative treatment methods and the superiority of alternative treatment methods;- the effectiveness of marketing and distribution methods and support for the product; and - coverage and reimbursement policies of government and third-party payers to the extent that the product could receive regulatory approval but not be approved for coverage by or receive adequate reimbursement from government and quasi-government agencies or other third-party payers.

In the past, we have conducted R&D operations and/or clinical trials in the United States, Canada and Australia. In the future, we expect to conduct certain clinical trials, and plan to seek regulatory approval of DM199, or any future product candidates, outside of the United States. Accordingly, we will be subject to risks related to operating in foreign countries including, among others: - differing regulatory requirements for drug approvals;- different standards of care in various countries that could complicate the design of our clinical trials and/or the evaluation of our product candidates;- different reimbursement systems and different competitive drugs indicated to treat the indications for which our product candidates are or will be developed;- different United States and foreign drug import and export rules;- reduced protection for intellectual property rights in certain countries;- withdrawal from, or revision to or unexpected changes in international trade policies or agreements and the imposition or increases in import and export licensing and other compliance requirements, customs duties and tariffs, import and export quotas and other trade restrictions, license obligations, and other non-tariff barriers to trade;- the imposition of U.S. or international sanctions against a country, company, person or entity with whom we do business that would restrict or prohibit continued business with that country, company, person or entity;- economic weakness, including inflation or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;- compliance with tax, employment, immigration, and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;- compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws;- foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes;- foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and/or reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;- difficulties in managing and staffing international operations and increases in infrastructure costs, including legal, tax, accounting, and information technology;- workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;- production shortages or shipping delays resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad, such as supply chain disruptions, closures and slowdowns caused by COVID-19;- potential liability resulting from development work conducted by foreign partners or collaborators;- transportation delays and interruptions;- business interruptions resulting from natural disasters or geopolitical actions, including war, such as the current war between Russia and Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and terrorism or systems failure, including cybersecurity breaches; and - compliance with evolving and expansive international data privacy laws, such as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation.

COVID-19 has had, and may continue to have, a severe effect on the clinical trials of many drug candidates, including our ReMEDy2 trial. Prior to the clinical hold of our ReMEDy2 trial, we experienced challenges with engaging and activating clinical trial sites. We believe this was due primarily to clinical staff shortages resulting from layoffs and employee burnout, the reallocation of clinical nurses to COVID-19 care, particularly during surges in COVID-19 cases, a loss of study coordinators resulting from budget constraints and COVID-19 vaccination requirements. Hospital study sites have been especially impacted by these factors. Additionally, prior to the clinical hold of our ReMEDy2 trial, we experienced slower than expected enrollments in the trial due to these factors and patient concerns related to visiting clinical trial sites or being visited by clinical study nurses. In an effort to mitigate the impact of these factors, we have worked with our contract research organization to develop alternative procedures to support study sites and potential participants as needed. We intend to continue to monitor the results of these efforts or implement additional actions to mitigate the impact of these factors on our ReMEDy2 trial. It is also possible that these efforts may draw our employees away from their core responsibilities and create additional expenses, which may adversely affect our business and results of operations. Note however that these efforts may not be effective if patients are unwilling to enroll in our ReMEDy2 trial. We anticipate that COVID-19, and variants of COVID-19, will likely continue to adversely affect our ability to initiate new clinical trial sites and recruit or enroll subjects, and we cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to resolve these issues. Although the severity of the COVID-19 virus has decreased significantly during the past two years, the extent to which COVID-19 may impact our ReMEDy2 trial will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the emergence of new variants, the duration and severity of each variant, and the effectiveness of actions to contain, treat and prevent COVID-19, including the availability, effectiveness and acceptance of vaccines and vaccine booster shots. The resurgence of COVID-19 caused by any new variants in the future or another pandemic could cause us to experience continued and/or additional disruptions that could severely impact our ReMEDy2 trial, as well as our business.

Potential future disruptions in access to bank deposits or lending commitments due to bank failure, could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, our business, financial condition and stock price. The early 2023 closures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank and their placement into receivership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) created bank-specific and broader financial institution liquidity risk and concerns. Although the depositors at these financial institutions have continued to have access to their funds, even those in excess of the standard FDIC insurance limits, future adverse developments with respect to specific financial institutions or the broader financial services industry may lead to market-wide liquidity shortages. Although we did not have deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank or First Republic Bank, the failure of any bank in which we deposit our funds could reduce the amount of cash we have available for our operations or delay our ability to access such funds. Any such failure may increase the possibility of a sustained deterioration of financial market liquidity, or illiquidity at clearing, cash management and/or custodial financial institutions. In the event we have a commercial relationship with a bank that has failed or is otherwise distressed, we may experience delays or other issues in meeting our financial obligations. If other banks and financial institutions enter receivership or become insolvent in the future in response to financial conditions affecting the banking system and financial markets, our ability to access our cash and cash equivalents and investments may be threatened and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In addition, the ability of our suppliers, vendors, and others in which we do business to access their cash and cash equivalents and investments or to obtain any necessary financing to continue their respective businesses could be threatened, which in turn, could harm our business.