TNF Pharmaceuticals (TNFA) Risk Factors

We will require substantial future capital in order to complete planned and future pre-clinical and clinical development for MYMD-1 and Supera-CBD and potentially commercialize these product candidates. We expect increased spending levels in connection with our clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to commercial launch, product sales, medical affairs, regulatory, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations before any commercial revenue may occur. Any additional capital raised through the sale of equity or equity-backed securities may dilute our stockholders’ ownership percentages and could also result in a decrease in the market value of our equity securities. The terms of any securities issued by us in future capital transactions may be more favorable to new investors, and may include preferences, superior voting rights and the issuance of warrants or other derivative securities, which may have a further dilutive effect on the holders of any of our securities then outstanding. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in pursuing future capital financing, including investment banking fees, legal fees, accounting fees, securities law compliance fees, printing and distribution expenses and other costs. We may also be required to recognize non-cash expenses in connection with certain securities we issue, such as convertible notes and warrants, which may adversely impact our financial condition. Additional capital might not be available when we need it and our actual cash requirements might be greater than anticipated. If we require additional capital at a time when investment in its industry or in the marketplace in general is limited, we might not be able to raise funding on favorable terms, if at all. If we are not able to obtain financing when needed or on terms favorable to us, we may need to delay, reduce or eliminate certain research and development programs or other operations, sell some or all of our assets or merge with another entity.

Following the Merger, our primary products are MyMD Florida’s therapeutic platforms: MYMD-1, a clinical-stage immunometabolic regulator and Supera-CBD, a pre-clinical stage patented synthetic CBD analog. We expect to incur losses as we develop our product candidates, and our product candidates, may never get approved by the FDA or even if approved for marketing, may not be profitable. The failure to successfully develop product candidates will significantly diminish the anticipated benefits of the Merger and have a material adverse effect on our business. There is no assurance that our business operations, strategies or focus will be successful, which could depress the value of our common stock.

We have been subject to a number of litigations as described elsewhere in these “Risk Factors” and in Note 9 to our consolidated financial statements. In connection with certain of these litigations, we have entered into settlements of claims for significant monetary damages. We may also be subject to judgements or enter into additional settlements of claims for significant monetary damages for the securities litigations that we have yet to enter into settlement agreements. Defending against the current litigations is or can be time-consuming, expensive and cause diversion of our management’s attention. Companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have frequently been the objects of securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Class action and derivative lawsuits could result in substantial costs to us and cause a diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could materially harm our financial condition and results of operations. With respect to any litigation, our insurance may not reimburse us, or may not be sufficient to reimburse us, for the expenses or losses we may suffer in contesting and concluding such lawsuit. Substantial litigation costs, including the substantial self-insured retention that we are required to satisfy before any insurance applies to a claim, unreimbursed legal fees or an adverse result in any litigation may adversely impact our business, operating results or financial condition. We believe that our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance will cover our potential liability with respect to any securities class-action lawsuit; however, the insurer has reserved its rights to contest the applicability of the insurance to such claims and the limits of the insurance may be insufficient to cover any eventual liability.

We believe the cannabinoid industry is highly dependent upon consumer perception regarding the safety, efficacy, quality, and legality of cannabinoids, whether naturally derived or synthetic. Consumer perception of cannabinoid products can be significantly influenced by scientific research or findings, regulatory investigations, litigation, media attention, and other publicity regarding the consumption of CBD products. There can be no assurance that future scientific research, findings, regulatory proceedings, litigation, media attention, or other research findings or publicity will be favorable to the CBD market or Supera-CBD, in particular. Our dependence upon consumer perceptions with regard to Supera-CBD, particularly once it is approved for commercialization, if ever, means that adverse scientific research reports, findings, regulatory proceedings, litigation, media attention, or other publicity relating to cannabinoid products, generally, or any particular cannabinoid products or derivatives, in particular, regardless of merit or accuracy, could have a material adverse effect on our business, the development of, or ultimate commercial demand for (if applicable), Supera-CBD. Such adverse publicity or other negative media attention could arise even if the adverse effects reportedly associated with such products resulted from consumers’ failure to consume such products appropriately or as directed. Any adverse publicity or other similar occurrences affecting consumer perception may have a material adverse impact on our reputation, perception of Supera-CBD, and our ability to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for Supera-CBD and its prospective commercial viability.

We intend to establish manufacturing relationships with a limited number of suppliers to manufacture raw materials, the drug substance and finished product of any product candidate for which we are responsible for pre-clinical or clinical development. Each supplier may require licenses to manufacture such components if such processes are not owned by the supplier or in the public domain. As part of any marketing approval, a manufacturer and its processes are required to be qualified by the FDA prior to regulatory approval. If supply from the approved vendor is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply. An alternative vendor would need to be qualified through an NDA supplement which could result in further delay. The FDA or other regulatory agencies outside of the U.S. may also require additional studies if a new supplier is relied upon for commercial production. Switching vendors may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. The process of manufacturing drugs is complex, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks. Manufacturing drugs is highly susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturers, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business. Moreover, if the FDA determines that our CMOs are not in compliance with FDA laws and regulations, including those governing cGMPs, the FDA may deny NDA approval until the deficiencies are corrected or we replace the manufacturer in our NDA with a manufacturer that is in compliance. In addition, approved products and the facilities at which they are manufactured are required to maintain ongoing compliance with extensive FDA requirements and the requirements of other similar agencies, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP requirements. As such, our CMOs are subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMPs. Furthermore, although we do not have day-to-day control over the operations of our CMOs, we are responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including cGMPs. In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with good manufacturing practices, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if our collaborators obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that manufacturers will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

To succeed, we must recruit, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan, harm our results of operations and increase our capabilities to successfully commercialize MYMD-1, Supera-CBD and our other product candidates. The competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business or to recruit suitable replacement personnel. Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be limited.

We rely on third party CROs, CMOs, consultants and others to design, conduct, supervise and monitor key activities relating to, discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, and we intend to do the same for future activities relating to existing and future programs. Because we rely on third parties and do not have the ability to conduct all required testing, discovery, manufacturing, preclinical studies or clinical trials independently, we have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials than we would if we conducted them on our own. These investigators, CROs, CMOs and consultants are not our employees, and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our programs. The third parties we contract with might not be diligent or timely in conducting our discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in discovery, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful, in whole or in part. If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of pre-clinical studies or clinical trials or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial, as well as in accordance with GLP, GCPs and other applicable laws, regulations and standards. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. The FDA and other regulatory authorities enforce GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fails to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in its clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving its marketing applications. We cannot assure that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials have complied with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced in accordance with cGMPs. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which could delay or prevent the receipt of regulatory approvals. Any such event could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148) (the “ACA”) and on March 30, 2010, he signed the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” (P.L. 111-152), collectively commonly referred to as the “Healthcare Reform Law.” The Healthcare Reform Law included a number of new rules regarding health insurance, the provision of healthcare, conditions to reimbursement for healthcare services provided to Medicare and Medicaid patients, and other healthcare policy reforms. Through the law-making process, substantial changes have been and continue to be made to the current system for paying for healthcare in the U.S., including changes made to extend medical benefits to certain Americans who lacked insurance coverage and to contain or reduce healthcare costs (such as by reducing or conditioning reimbursement amounts for healthcare services and drugs, and imposing additional taxes, fees, and rebate obligations on pharmaceutical and medical device companies). This legislation was one of the most comprehensive and significant reforms ever experienced by the U.S. in the healthcare industry and has significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. This legislation has impacted the scope of healthcare insurance and incentives for consumers and insurance companies, among others. Additionally, the Healthcare Reform Law’s provisions were designed to encourage providers to find cost savings in their clinical operations. Pharmaceuticals represent a significant portion of the cost of providing care. This environment has caused changes in the purchasing habits of consumers and providers and resulted in specific attention to the pricing negotiation, product selection and utilization review surrounding pharmaceuticals. This attention may result in our current commercial products, products we may commercialize or promote in the future, and our therapeutic candidates, being chosen less frequently or the pricing being substantially lowered. At this stage, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of the direct or indirect impact of the Healthcare Reform Law on us. These structural changes could entail further modifications to the existing system of private payors and government programs (such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program), creation of government-sponsored healthcare insurance sources, or some combination of both, as well as other changes. Restructuring the coverage of medical care in the U.S. could impact the reimbursement for prescribed drugs and pharmaceuticals, including our current commercial products, those we and our development or commercialization partners are currently developing or those that we may commercialize or promote in the future. If reimbursement for the products we currently commercialize or promote, any product we may commercialize or promote, or approved therapeutic candidates is substantially reduced or otherwise adversely affected in the future, or rebate obligations associated with them are substantially increased, it could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations. Extending medical benefits to those who currently lack coverage will likely result in substantial costs to the U.S. federal government, which may force significant additional changes to the healthcare system in the U.S. Much of the funding for expanded healthcare coverage may be sought through cost savings. While some of these savings may come from realizing greater efficiencies in delivering care, improving the effectiveness of preventive care and enhancing the overall quality of care, much of the cost savings may come from reducing the cost of care and increased enforcement activities. Cost of care could be reduced further by decreasing the level of reimbursement for medical services or products (including our current commercial products, our development or commercialization partners or any product we may commercialize or promote, or those therapeutic candidates currently being developed by us), or by restricting coverage (and, thereby, utilization) of medical services or products. In either case, a reduction in the utilization of, or reimbursement for our current commercial products, any product we may commercialize or promote, or any therapeutic candidate, or for which we receive marketing approval in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations. Several states and private entities initially mounted legal challenges to the Healthcare Reform Law, in particular, the ACA, and they continue to litigate various aspects of the legislation. On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court generally upheld the provisions of the ACA at issue as constitutional. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legislation improperly required the states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more individuals. As a result, states have a choice as to whether they will expand the number of individuals covered by their respective state Medicaid programs. Some states have not expanded their Medicaid programs and have chosen to develop other cost-saving and coverage measures to provide care to currently uninsured individuals. Many of these efforts to date have included the institution of Medicaid-managed care programs. The manner in which these cost-saving and coverage measures are implemented could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations. Further, the healthcare regulatory environment has seen significant changes in recent years and is still in flux. Legislative initiatives to modify, limit, replace, or repeal the ACA and judicial challenges have continued. We cannot predict the impact on our business of future legislative and legal challenges to the ACA or other aspects of the Healthcare Reform Law or other changes to the current laws and regulations. The financial impact of U.S. healthcare reform legislation over the next few years will depend on a number of factors, including the policies reflected in implementing regulations and guidance and changes in sales volumes for therapeutics affected by the legislation. From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in the U.S. Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing coverage, reimbursement, and marketing of pharmaceutical products. In addition, third-party payor coverage and reimbursement policies are often revised or interpreted in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. During his time in office, former President Trump supported the repeal of all or portions of the ACA. President Trump also issued an executive order in which he stated that it is his administration’s policy to seek the prompt repeal of the ACA and in which he directed executive departments and federal agencies to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of the provisions of the ACA to the maximum extent permitted by law. Congress has enacted legislation that repeals certain portions of the ACA, including but not limited to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December 2017, which included a provision that eliminates the penalty under the ACA’s individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019, as well as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, passed in February 2018, which, among other things, repealed the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which was established by the ACA and was intended to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending). Additionally, in December 2018, a district court in Texas held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the ACA is, therefore, invalid. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the holding on the individual mandate but remanded the case back to the lower court to reassess whether and how such holding affects the validity of the rest of the ACA. The Fifth Circuit’s decision on the individual mandate was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs (comprised of the state of Texas, as well as numerous other states and certain individuals) did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate and, accordingly, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and instructed the district court to dismiss the case. As a result, the ACA will remain in-effect in its current form for the foreseeable future; however, we cannot predict what additional challenges may arise in the future, the outcome thereof, or the impact any such actions may have on our business. The Biden administration also introduced various measures in 2021 focusing on healthcare and drug pricing, in particular. For example, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021, and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. On the legislative front, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law on March 11, 2021, which, in relevant part, eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source drugs and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. And, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order entitled, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices” that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. And, in November 2021, President Biden announced the “Prescription Drug Pricing Plan” as part of the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) passed by the House of Representatives on November 19, 2021, which aims to lower prescription drug pricing by, among other things, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs covered under Medicare Part D and Part B after the drugs have been on the market for a certain number of years and imposing tax penalties on drug manufacturers that refuse to negotiate pricing with Medicare or increase drug prices “faster than inflation.” If enacted, this bill could have a substantial impact on our business. In the coming years, additional legislative and regulatory changes could be made to governmental health programs that could significantly impact pharmaceutical companies and the success of our product candidates. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. There is uncertainty as to what healthcare programs and regulations may be implemented or changed at the federal and/or state level in the U.S. or the effect of any future legislation or regulation. Furthermore, we cannot predict what actions the Biden administration will implement in connection with the Health Reform Law. However, it is possible that such initiatives could have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain approval and/or successfully commercialize products in the U.S. in the future. For example, any changes that reduce, or impede the ability to obtain, reimbursement for any products we may commercialize in the future, if applicable.