​

​

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

​

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024

or

☐TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from             to

Commission File Number: 001-40021

AEON Biopharma, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

​

5 Park Plaza

Suite 1750

Irvine, CA 92614

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(949) 354-6499

(Registrant’s telephone number)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

​

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).   Yes  ☒    No   ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant's executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).   Yes  ☐    No  ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the registrant's Class A common stock on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $17.0 million.

​

As of March 21, 2025, there were 10,532,802 of the registrant’s shares of Class A common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

​

​

​

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Report”) contains certain statements that are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”). All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Report, including statements concerning possible or assumed future actions, business strategies, events or results of operations, and any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Report are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Report and are subject to a number of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks, including, without limitation, the following:

The preceding list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all of our forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. While we believe these expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections are reasonable, such forward-looking statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. These and other important factors, including those discussed in this Report, may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included elsewhere in this Report are not guarantees of future performance and our actual results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and the development of the industry in which we operate, may differ materially from the forward-looking statements included elsewhere in this Report. In addition, even if our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and events in the industry in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements included elsewhere in this Report, they may not be predictive of results or developments in future periods.

Any forward-looking statement that we make in this Report speaks only as of the date of such statement. Except as required by law, we do not undertake any obligation to update or revise, or to publicly announce any update or revision to, any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date of this Report. For all of our forward-looking statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Reform Act.

As used in this Report, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires: “we,” “us,” “our,” “AEON,” the “Company,” and similar references refer to AEON Biopharma, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and “common stock” refers to our Class A common stock.

​

​

​

​

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

​

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our common stock. Some of the principal risks and uncertainties include the following:

​

PART I

​

Item 1. Business

​

AEON Biopharma, Inc. (“AEON”) is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing its proprietary botulinum toxin complex, ABP-450 (prabotulinumtoxinA) injection (“ABP-450”), for debilitating medical conditions.

On December 12, 2022, AEON Biopharma Sub, Inc. (formerly known as AEON Biopharma, Inc.) (“Old AEON”) and Priveterra Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Priveterra Acquisition Corp. (“Priveterra”), a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or other similar business combination with one or more target businesses, entered into a Business Combination and Merger Agreement (the “Business Combination Agreement” or “BCA”) dated December 12, 2022 and amended April 27, 2023.

On July 21, 2023 (the “Closing Date”), the parties consummated the transactions contemplated by the BCA (collectively referred to as the “Merger” or “Business Combination”) in connection with the closing of the Merger (the “Closing”). On the Closing Date, Old AEON merged with Priveterra Merger Sub, Inc., with Old AEON surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company; and the Company changed its name from “Priveterra Acquisition Corp.” to “AEON Biopharma, Inc.”; and Old AEON changed its name to AEON Biopharma Sub, Inc. The post-Merger Company is referred to herein as “AEON,” or the “Company.”

Following the Closing, the Company’s common stock is listed on the NYSE American under the symbol “AEON” and commenced trading on July 24, 2023.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references to “we”, “us”, “our” and “the Company” refer to the business and operations of AEON Biopharma, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the Merger (“Old AEON” or the “Predecessor”) and to AEON Biopharma, Inc. (“AEON”) following the consummation of the Merger.

Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing our botulinum toxin complex, prabotulinumtoxinA injection (“ABP-450”), for debilitating medical conditions, with an initial focus on the neurosciences market. We plan to develop and seek regulatory approval of ABP-450 as a biosimilar product in the United States through submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, under Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, or a Section 351(k) BLA, with the goal of addressing the estimated $3.0 billion global therapeutic botulinum toxin market, which is projected to grow to $4.4 billion in 2027, according to the Decision Resources Group Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Market Analysis Global as of 2021. ABP-450 is the same botulinum toxin complex that is currently approved as a biosimilar in Mexico and India and, in the U.S. is approved to provide temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar lines for certain adult patients and marketed by Evolus, Inc. under the name Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union. We have exclusive development and distribution rights for certain therapeutic uses of ABP-450 in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and certain other international territories. We have built a highly experienced management team with specific experience in biopharmaceutical and botulinum toxin development and commercialization.

We have completed a Phase 2 study of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia and completed enrollment and dosing of patients for a Phase 2 double blind study of ABP-450 for the treatment of both chronic and episodic migraine. We originally intended to pursue a submission of a BLA under Section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act, or an Original BLA, seeking one or more potential therapeutic indications for ABP-450. However, our Phase 2 clinical trials for episodic and chronic migraine did not meet their respective primary endpoints. In May 2024, we announced the discontinuation of our Phase 2 clinical trials for episodic and chronic migraine in order to implement certain cash preservation measures. On July 9, 2024, we announced a strategic reprioritization to pursue a 351(k) biosimilar regulatory pathway for ABP-450, using AbbVie Inc.’s product Botox as a proposed reference product for all of the indications for which Botox is approved, other than the cosmetic uses (for which we do not hold development or commercialization rights).

We held an initial meeting with the FDA in the third quarter of 2024 during which we aligned with the FDA on the next steps to develop a Botox biosimilar. We commenced analytical studies in the fourth quarter of 2024 to prepare for a potential Biosimilar Biological Product Development (“BPD”) Type 2a meeting with the FDA in the second half of 2025 to review the results from the studies.

Botulinum toxins have proven to be a highly versatile therapeutic biologic, with over 230 potential therapeutic uses documented in published scientific literature and twelve approved therapeutic indications in the United States. Our initial development programs for ABP-450 were directed at migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis. We selected these initial programs based on a comprehensive product assessment screen designed to identify indications where we believe ABP-450 has the potential to deliver significant value to patients, physicians and payors and where its clinical, regulatory and commercial characteristics suggest viability. We believe that ABP-450 has potential across a broad range of target indications and we plan to continue to explore additional development programs that satisfy our product assessment screens.

The FDA allowed our Investigational New Drug application, or IND, for ABP-450, supporting our clinical trials in the preventative treatment for migraines, to proceed in October 2020, and we began treating patients in our Phase 2 clinical study beginning in March 2021. Prior to commencing this Phase 2 study, no Phase 1 clinical studies of ABP-450 had been performed in regard to migraine by us or any other party. Nevertheless, given the extensive preclinical toxicology and other data developed by our licensing partner, Daewoong, and the aesthetic licensor of ABP-450, Evolus, the FDA permitted us to proceed directly to this Phase 2 clinical trial.

The FDA allowed our IND for ABP-450, which supports our clinical trials in cervical dystonia, to proceed in October 2020, and we began treating patients in our Phase 2 clinical study beginning in April 2021. We enrolled 59 patients in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study across approximately 20 study sites in the United States. Patients enrolled into the study received one of four different injection cycles, low dose of 150 units, mid-dose of 250 units, high dose of 350 units or placebo, with patients evenly split among the four arms. Topline data from the Phase 2 cervical dystonia study, released in September 2022, showed that ABP-450 met all primary endpoints and a number of other key secondary endpoints, supporting the further development of ABP-450 in reducing signs and symptoms associated with cervical dystonia. We may commence a Phase 3 study in cervical dystonia pending the results of the comparative analytical studies and discussions with the FDA in a Biological Product Development meeting.

In December 2020, we initiated a preclinical gastroparesis study with 42 primates receiving multiple injections of ABP-450 across four dose ranges. The objective of this preclinical study was to characterize the safety and toxicology prior to entering human studies. We completed this preclinical study in January 2022. Following the preclinical study, we submitted an IND to the FDA and received a letter in May 2022 confirming that the IND-opening Phase 2a clinical study may proceed. We continue to evaluate various pathways to most efficiently advance this clinical development program.

Additionally, we have an ongoing preclinical study in rats designed to provide IND supporting safety and efficacy data. ABP-450 is injected into the stellate ganglion using ultrasound guidance to assess the effect on the sympathetic nervous pathway, which may inform us whether ABP-450 has the potential for utility across a broad portfolio of neuropsychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We may initiate other preclinical studies from time to time to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in other disorders.

We license ABP-450 from Daewoong, a South Korean pharmaceutical manufacturer, and have exclusive development and distribution rights for therapeutic indications in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and certain other international territories. Daewoong licenses the same 900 kDa botulinum toxin to Evolus for cosmetic indications, which Evolus markets and sells under the name Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union. Prior to licensing the botulinum toxin complex to Evolus, Daewoong conducted a broad preclinical development program for ABP-450 that was primarily focused on safety to support any clinical indication. Subsequently, Evolus completed a comprehensive clinical development program of the same botulinum toxin complex and has received approval from regulatory authorities in the United States, the European Union and Canada to market and sell Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar, or frown, lines in adults. Over 2,100 adult subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown participated in Evolus’ clinical development program, and each of Evolus’ Phase 3 clinical studies successfully met their respective primary safety and efficacy endpoints. While none of these preclinical or clinical programs specifically contemplated any therapeutic use of ABP-450, given that the FDA’s regulatory requirements are generally the same for the cosmetic or therapeutic use of a toxin, we believe that the positive data derived from these preclinical and clinical studies will support the clinical development and anticipated future safety labeling of ABP-450 for migraine and cervical dystonia, in addition to other indications, at all contemplated dose ranges.

We plan to pursue approval of a BLA under Section 351(k) that exclusively contemplates therapeutic indications for ABP-450, which we believe could improve reimbursement amounts for ABP-450, if approved. Existing botulinum toxins, including Botox, are approved under a single BLA for both therapeutic and cosmetic indications. As a result, other botulinum toxins are required to include

the sales prices of both therapeutic and cosmetic botulinum toxin sales when calculating the average selling price, or ASP, that is used to determine the reimbursement amount physicians receive for therapeutic usage. The inclusion of a lower cosmetic sales price in the calculation of ASP can cause physicians to lose money when treating patients with existing botulinum toxins and also creates a deterrent to providing payors and/or providers with rebates or other financial incentives. If we are successful in obtaining a BLA under Section 351(k) for therapeutic indications of ABP-450, the ASP for ABP-450 would be calculated using only therapeutic sales, which we believe would facilitate consistent and favorable reimbursement to physicians when they choose to use ABP-450 for therapeutic treatments, as well as the ability to provide payors and/or providers with rebates and other financial incentives. This pricing model would be unique to us within the current therapeutic neurotoxin market, and we believe it would allow physicians to provide treatment with ABP-450 at a more competitive or the same net price as the market leader after rebates and discounts.

We believe ABP-450 could have therapeutic applications in a broad range of debilitating medical conditions, and we intend to continue to leverage our product assessment screening process to identify additional indications for future development. Our management team possesses significant and relevant experience in the botulinum toxin industry in both drug development and commercialization, and we believe they are highly qualified to successfully develop and commercialize ABP-450 to enhance the lives of patients that suffer from debilitating medical conditions.

Overview of the Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Market

Botulinum toxins are a standard treatment for a number of indications, including debilitating movement disorders, chronic migraine, overactive bladder, excessive salivating and excessive sweating, and are the first-line standard of care for the treatment of certain conditions, including cervical dystonia. The use of botulinum toxins to treat debilitating medical conditions began with the FDA approving Botox for the treatment of strabismus and blepharospasm, two eye muscle disorders, in adults, in 1989. Botox was the only FDA-approved type-A botulinum toxin until 2009 when the FDA initially approved Dysport for the treatment of cervical dystonia and glabellar lines in adults. In 2010, the FDA approved Xeomin for the treatment of cervical dystonia and blepharospasm in adults. There are currently nine unique therapeutic indications for botulinum toxins that have been approved by the FDA.

The global therapeutic botulinum toxin market is forecast to grow from $3.0 billion in 2020 to an estimated $4.4 billion in 2027, according to the Decision Resources Group Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Market Analysis Global as of 2021. This market growth is expected to be driven primarily by growth in the number of procedures, which is expected to grow from 2.7 million in 2020 to an estimated 5.0 million in 2027, as well as multiple other factors. The global therapeutic toxin market is concentrated in the United States, which has an estimated 84% market share, while the European Union has an estimated 9% market share and Asia Pacific has an estimated 7% market share. The United States is projected to continue to be the largest market for therapeutic botulinum toxin treatment, primarily due to the greater number of approved indications, higher ASP, and greater patient and physician awareness of botulinum toxin usage. The global therapeutic toxin market also further breaks down by indication, with migraine comprising approximately 36% of the market share, spasticity comprising approximately 28% of the market share, cervical dystonia comprising approximately 17% of the market share, overactive bladder comprising approximately 6% of the market share and other indications comprising approximately 13% of the market share.

According to Decision Resources Group, Botox, Dysport and Xeomin collectively made up over 98% of the United States therapeutic market for botulinum toxins in 2021. The market leader for therapeutic botulinum toxins is Botox, which is marketed by AbbVie Inc., or AbbVie, and had approximately 85% of the global therapeutic market share for botulinum toxins and 95% of the United States therapeutic market share for botulinum toxins in 2019. The migraine indication is AbbVie’s single largest toxin therapeutic indication and contributes to 45% of AbbVie’s therapeutic toxin sales. The main approved competitors to Botox are Dysport, marketed by Ipsen Ltd., and Xeomin, marketed by Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC, each of which have approximately 2% of the global market share for therapeutic botulinum toxin treatments.

Overview of ABP-450

ABP-450 is a 2-chain polypeptide, a heavy chain joined by a bond to a light chain. The light chain is a protease enzyme that attacks fusion proteins at the neuromuscular junction, preventing the vesicles containing acetylcholine from anchoring to the membrane and inhibiting their release. ABP-450 interferes with nerve impulses by inhibiting the release of acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction, causing a flaccid paralysis of muscles.

The active biologic ingredient in ABP-450 is Clostridium botulinum toxin, type A with a complete molecular complex weight of 900 kDa. Botulinum toxin type A is an active toxin composed of a covalently bonded dimer of two complexes consisting of

neurotoxin, non-toxic non-haemagglutinin protein, and haemagglutinin proteins. The active part of the botulinum toxin is the 150 kDa component, and the remaining 750 kDa of the complex is made up of accessory proteins that we believe help with the function of the active portion of the botulinum toxin. When injected at therapeutic levels, ABP-450 blocks peripheral acetylcholine release at presynaptic cholinergic nerve terminals by cleaving SNAP-25, a protein integral to the successful docking and release of acetylcholine from vesicles situated within the nerve endings leading to denervation and relaxation of the muscle. ABP-450, if approved, will be the only therapeutic botulinum toxin with significantly similar physiochemical properties as Botox. In addition, ABP-450 will be the only therapeutic botulinum toxin that shares the same procedure and dilution ratios for the reconstitution of the botulinum toxin to an injectable liquid. These reconstitution procedures are not subject to intellectual property protection. We believe the similarity of the two products will facilitate physician adoption of ABP-450 more rapidly and sustainably than other botulinum toxins that compete with Botox.

Daewoong has recently constructed a facility in South Korea where it produces ABP-450 and Jeuveau, which is the same botulinum toxin complex as ABP-450. The manufacture of ABP-450 drug substance is based on the fermentation of Daewoong’s C.botulinum cell line, followed by isolation and purification of the drug substance. Daewoong has received a United States patent for the production process. The drug substance production facility was purpose built and is in compliance with FDA and EMA cGMP requirements. We believe this facility will be sufficient to meet demand for ABP-450 for the foreseeable future.

Our Pipeline

In July 2024, we announced a strategic reprioritization to pursue a 351(k) biosimilar regulatory pathway for ABP-450, using AbbVie Inc.’s product Botox as a proposed reference product for all of the indications for which Botox is approved, other than the cosmetic uses (for which we do not hold development or commercialization rights). We held an initial meeting with the FDA in the third quarter of 2024 during which we aligned with the FDA on the next steps to develop a Botox biosimilar. We commenced analytical studies in the fourth quarter of 2024 to prepare for a potential Biosimilar Biological Product Development (“BPD”) meeting with the FDA in the second half of 2025 to review the results from the studies.

We have summarized below two important for ABP-450. migraine, Botox’s highest revenue generating indication, and cervical dystonia, which AEON could elect to pursue in the event the Company fails to approval as a Botox biosimilar. The anticipated level of financing needed for our existing pipeline candidates is highly variable and difficult to project as the required analytical, and potentially clinical, studies, which are our primary cost drivers, will be largely based on the data generated and feedback from the FDA. As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan into the fourth quarter of 2025. We are actively attempting to secure additional capital to fund our operations. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any further development of ABP-450 for any indication, including the biosimilar pathway and any additional studies in cervical dystonia, will require additional funding, which may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all.

Migraine

Migraine is a complex neurological condition characterized by recurrent episodes of headaches. Patients that suffer from migraine headaches experience symptoms including throbbing recurring pain, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sensitivity to light, sound, touch and smell. Migraine attacks usually last between four and 72 hours. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study conducted in 2019, migraine is the second leading disability in the world. The development and course of migraines differs from patient to patient, where a subset of patients experience an increase in frequency over a period of months or years and may gradually evolve from low-frequency episodic migraine to high-frequency episodic migraine and then to chronic migraine.

Industry sources and published research estimate that approximately 15% of adults in the United States experience migraine or severe headache, which represents approximately 40 million people. An estimated 1 billion people worldwide suffer from migraines, making migraine the third most prevalent illness in the world. Using prevalence rates from various published sources, we estimate that approximately 4.0 million people in the United States suffer from chronic migraines, defined as headache occurring on 15 or more days per month and eight or more migraines per month, with migraine defined as headache lasting for four or more hours per day, and that 9.4 million people in the United States live with episodic migraine, defined as headache occurring on 15 or fewer days per month and migraine occurring from six to 14 times per month.

Migraine treatment is broadly divided into two strategies: acute and prophylactic treatment. The primary goal of acute treatment is to provide relief from the pain and associated symptoms after a migraine attack has started. The primary goal of prophylactic, or

preventative, treatment is to preemptively decrease the frequency, severity and duration of future migraine attacks. A key pathway for migraine and headache pain is the trigeminovascular input from the meningeal vessels. These nerves pass through the trigeminal ganglion and synapses on second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, which then projects through the quintothalamic tract and, after decussating in the brain stem, form synapses with neurons in the thalamus. Disrupting pain stimulus to the trigeminocervical complex is one means of mitigating migraine headaches and botulinum toxin has pharmacological activity that can disrupt peripherical neuronal pain stimulus to the complex. Botulinum toxins are generally a third-line therapy in the prophylactic treatment of migraine patients. First- and second-line treatments to prevent migraine generally include the use of orally administered anti-epileptic, beta-blocker and tricyclic antidepressant pharmaceuticals, or the use of neuromodulation devices to stimulate the vagus nerve. Currently, the discontinuation rate for patients on existing oral preventive migraine medications is high due to poor tolerability and lack of efficacy. Migraine patients will typically progress to the third-line botulinum toxin therapy when first- and second-line therapies are not effective or not well-tolerated.

Botox is the only botulinum toxin approved by the FDA for prophylaxis of headaches in adult patients with chronic migraine and with a patented treatment protocol that designates a total dose of 155 units into 31 injection sites across seven areas of the head and neck. Botox is only approved for chronic migraine and there is no botulinum toxin approved for prevention of episodic migraine. Frequently reported adverse reactions following treatment with Botox for migraine include eyelid ptosis, commonly known as “drooping eyelid,” neck pain and muscle weakness. Sales of Botox for chronic migraine were estimated to be $691 million in 2019, and the use of Botox for chronic migraine increased from 2018 through the first quarter of 2021, with quarterly claims ranging from between 118,000 and 147,000 during this period. Such claims increased despite the introduction and presence of multiple CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide)- targeting medications during this period. We believe that as of March 2022, the majority of patients with chronic migraine who elected to switch treatment options chose Botox, with an estimated 65% of patients choosing Botox versus 35% choosing a CGRP. Another third-line treatment for migraine, referred to as CGRP-targeting medications, has recently been approved. CGRP is present in many organs in the body and when released around the nerves of the head, CGRP can cause inflammation and result in migraines.

CGRP-targeting medications seek to block the peptide itself in an effort to prevent migraine. CGRPs can target treatment of both chronic and episodic migraines, unlike Botox, which is used exclusively for treatment of chronic migraine. FDA-approved CGRPs include self-injectable monoclonal antibody formulations (Aimovig, Emgality, and Ajovy), an intravenous monoclonal antibody formulation (Vyepti) as well as oral formulations (Nurtec ODT and Qulipta). The use of CGRPs increased from 2018 through the second quarter of 2022, with quarterly claims ranging from between 875 and 547,000 during this period. Such claims stabilized in 2020, and Botox has returned to growth after a brief flat period we attribute to CGRP launches and COVID-19 challenges.

We are pursuing a 351(k) biosimilar regulatory pathway for ABP-450, using AbbVie Inc.’s product Botox as a proposed reference product for all of the therapeutic indications for which Botox is approved. ABP-450 is a similar structure to OnabotulniumtoxinA (Botox) which was FDA- approved for the prevention of chronic migraine in 2010. The clinical trials for Botox involved close to 1,400 patients in two trials termed the PREEMPT trials. According to Botox, over five million Botox treatments have been used in over 850 thousand chronic migraine patients and is the top branded treatment for chronic migraine. ABP-450 has demonstrated similar results to OnabotuliniumtoxinA in other neurological conditions such as cervical dystonia and in glabellar lines (aesthetic use). Therefore, we believe ABP-450 has the potential to demonstrate a similar efficacy and safety profile as those seen with OnabotuliniumtoxinA with regards to prophylactic treatment for migraine. Further, there is no known physiological difference between episodic and chronic migraines, and we therefore believe a treatment that effectively addresses chronic migraine should similarly treat episodic migraine. This has been concluded in the studies of other migraine treatments, such as the injectable versions of the CGRP class of drugs, all of which have received both episodic and chronic migraine approvals. There has been extensive preclinical toxicology and other data developed by our licensing partner, Daewoong, and the aesthetic licensor of ABP-450, Evolus.

As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan into the fourth quarter of 2025, including $18.3 million in net proceeds related to a public offering in January 2025. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” We cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any further development of ABP-450 for any indication, including the biosimilar pathway and any additional studies in cervical dystonia, will require additional funding, which may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all.

Cervical Dystonia

Cervical dystonia, also known as spasmodic torticollis, is a neurological condition characterized by involuntary muscle contractions of the neck that may present as spasms, contractions or abnormal posture. It is a chronic condition with no cure, causing significant pain and challenges to mobility due to abnormal postures, and affecting quality of life and daily activities. Botulinum toxin is the standard of care for the treatment of cervical dystonia, helping to improve pain, posture, and disability.

We believe that ABP-450’s mechanism of action has the potential to provide an effective treatment for patients suffering from cervical dystonia and, with a focused clinical program, may have the potential to provide an effective treatment for certain movement disorders, and broader muscle spasticity indications and labels. Botox, Dysport and Xeomin are currently approved by the FDA, and Daxxify’s supplemental BLA was accepted by the FDA for the therapeutic treatment of cervical dystonia in adult patients to reduce the severity of abnormal head and neck pain. ABP-450 has a similar 900 kDa molecular weighting to Botox, which we believe will facilitate physician adoption of ABP-450 more rapidly and sustainably than other botulinum toxins that compete with therapeutic uses of Botox. We believe that this physician conversion will be enhanced by reimbursement advantages we intend to offer to payors and physicians that will differentiate the economics of using ABP-450 from Botox.

In August 2022, we completed our Phase 2 clinical study of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia. This study enrolled 59 patients across approximately 20 sites in the United States. The study patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio across four treatment arms: a low dose 150 units of ABP-450, a medium dose 250 units of ABP-450, a high dose 350 units of ABP-450, or placebo. A treatment cycle consisted of one treatment cycle. Due to the nature of the disease, dosing was tailored to the individual patient based on the patient’s head and neck position, localization of pain, muscle hypertrophy, patient response, and adverse event history. The safety and efficacy of each of the four arms was evaluated over a maximum of 20 weeks. At the completion of the Phase 2 clinical study, all patients, irrespective of treatment group, had the option to receive treatment with ABP-450 by rolling over into a 52-week open-label extension study, and 51 of the patients opted to do so.

The primary endpoint of the clinical study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the single treatment cycle of ABP-450. To do so, the study, among other things, assessed the proportion of patients who developed TEAEs during the first 20 weeks of a single treatment cycle at any of the administered doses of ABP-450. The secondary efficacy endpoints included evaluating (1) the mean difference of change from baseline to week four of each dosing cohort, as measured by the Total Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale, or TWSTRS, the standard scale for measuring the severity of cervical dystonia, (2) certain subscales of TWSTRS, (3) Patient Global Impression of Change, (4) Clinical Global Impression of Change, and (5) duration of effect as measured by the median time to loss of 80% peak treatment effect.

Topline data from the Phase 2 study, released in September 2022, confirmed that ABP-450 met the primary and a number of other key secondary endpoints, supporting the safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in reducing signs and symptoms associated with cervical dystonia. ABP-450 was generally safe and well-tolerated with (1) zero discontinuations due to TEAEs, (2) low rate of treatment-related TEAEs, (1) zero dysphagia cases in the 150 unit arm and low rate of dysphagia (11%) and muscle weakness (6.7%) overall, and (4) all treatment-related TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature.

We believe the ABP-450 efficacy results from our Phase 2 study are similar to those achieved by another company in the Phase 3 clinical trial it relied upon to submit a supplemental BLA application for the treatment of cervical dystonia using its toxin. ABP-450’s efficacy results include: (1) TWSTRS at week four improved 14.01 points in the 150 unit arm, 11.28 points in the 250 unit arm, 9.92 points in the 350 unit arm, and 3.57 points in the placebo, showing a statistically significant change in the lower dose arms versus the placebo and clinically meaningful improvement (although not statistically significant) in all three arms; (2) Patient Global Impression of Change demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all three unit arms over the placebo; and (3) Clinical Global Impression of Change demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all three unit arms over the placebo. With respect to a few secondary endpoints, ABP-450 did not statistically separate from placebo, including in the TWSTRS pain subscale in any of the arms, the TWSTRS severity subscale in the mid- and high-dose arms or the TWSTRS disability subscale in the high-dose arm.

The median duration of treatment effect was at least 20 weeks for all three treatment arms. We are currently preparing for the end of Phase 2 meetings with FDA and EMA. At this time, we cannot predict the cost of completing the development of ABP-450 for cervical dystonia. Given our current capital resources, we do not expect to continue development of ABP-450 in cervical dystonia, including the commencement of any Phase 3 clinical trials, unless and until we are able to raise additional capital to support those activities.

We acknowledge that others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program or the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or product.

Previous Development of our Botulinum Toxin

The same botulinum toxin as ABP-450 has been approved for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines in the United States, the European Union and Canada, and a form of the botulinum toxin has been approved for the treatment of post-stroke upper limb spasticity in South Korea. Evolus markets and sells the same botulinum toxin as ABP-450 for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines under the brand name Jeuveau in the United States and under the brand name Nuceiva in the European Union and Canada, and Daewoong markets and sells its similar botulinum toxin under the brand name Nabota in South Korea. We believe that the Daewoong and Evolus studies related to the treatment of glabellar lines are relevant to the development of ABP-450 for therapeutic indications for several reasons, including that over 2,100 adults have been injected with a botulinum toxin that is identical or nearly identical to ABP-450 in the context of a clinical study program, generating significant safety, efficacy and non-inferiority data in the cosmetic setting.

​

Daewoong Preclinical Toxicology Program

In accordance with international guidelines and in consultation with the FDA, Daewoong conducted a broad preclinical development program for ABP-450, including the study of dose concentrations contemplated for multiple therapeutic uses. The program included preclinical efficacy, safety, reproductive toxicity and single and repeat dose toxicity studies of ABP-450. While this program did not specifically contemplate the use of ABP-450 for migraine, cervical dystonia, or gastroparesis, we believe that the positive data derived from these preclinical studies will support the clinical development and anticipated future safety labeling of ABP-450 for migraine and cervical dystonia at all contemplated dose ranges. We will have to conduct additional toxicology studies to support the gastroparesis clinical program because it includes a new target organ.

Daewoong South Korean Clinical Development for Glabellar Lines

In South Korea, Daewoong conducted two clinical studies of Nabota, a form of the same botulinum toxin as ABP-450, to support its BLA for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines to the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, or MFDS, including one Phase 1 clinical study and one Phase 3 clinical study. Both studies were double-blind, randomized studies with an active control, Botox. Each study compared 20 units of Nabota with 20 units of Botox, injected into each of five target sites in the glabellar region of adult subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines.

Nabota was approved by the MFDS for marketing on November 29, 2013 for the treatment of glabellar lines. The Nabota formulation, which was used in the early South Korean studies and which was commercialized by Daewoong, is slightly different than the formulation used in the studies sponsored by Evolus. The original Daewoong product was lyophilized and used a different human serum albumin that had not been approved by the FDA or EMA. With the approval of the Evolus vacuum dried product, Jeuveau, Daewoong has harmonized its product to be the same as the Evolus product and the same as the product that will be used in the clinical studies sponsored by us.

Evolus Clinical Development for Glabellar Lines

In 2014, Evolus initiated a comprehensive five-study clinical development program for Jeuveau, which consists of the same botulinum toxin complex as ABP-450, in the United States, the European Union and Canada to meet the regulatory requirements for a BLA in the United States, marketing authorization application, or MAA, in the European Union, and NDS, in Canada, for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines. The Evolus development program included three multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, controlled, single dose Phase 3 clinical studies and two open-label, multiple dose, long-term Phase 2 clinical studies. In each of the studies related to Jeuveau for the treatment of glabellar lines, the Jeuveau treatment group showed superiority over the placebo group and, where Botox was included as an active control, the Jeuveau treatment group was determined to be non-inferior to Botox. Between September 2014 and August 2016, over 2,100 adult male and female subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines

at maximum frown participated in this program. Jeuveau was approved for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines by the FDA in February 2019, and the same botulinum toxin was approved under the brand name Nuceiva by Health Canada in August 2018 and by the European Commission in September 2019.

Daewoong South Korean Clinical Development for Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity

Daewoong has conducted a post-stroke upper-limb spasticity Phase 3 clinical study in South Korea. It was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, active drug controlled, Phase 3 clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of up to 360 units of Nabota to Botox. Nabota was found to be non-inferior to Botox in this study. The result of this study was the basis for registration and approval of Nabota with the MFDS for the post-stroke upper limb spasticity indication in South Korea.

Patients diagnosed with a stroke at least six weeks prior to the start date of the study and found to be eligible based on the screening test result were randomized to either Nabota or Botox. Treatment consisted of intramuscular injections of up to 360 units to the wrist flexor, elbow flexor, finger flexor or thumb-in-palm; the total dose depended on the existence and severity of spasticity. In order to assess efficacy and safety after the treatment, follow-up visits were performed at four, eight and 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint compared the evaluations of the changes in muscle tension values as measured by the Modified Ashworth Scale, or MAS, scores of wrist flexors at four weeks after the injection compared to the scores before treatment. The changes in the wrist flexor MAS assessed by the investigator at four weeks after treatment compared to the baseline in the per protocol analysis group for the primary efficacy assessment were -1.44±0.72 points and -1.46±0.77 points in the Nabota and Botox group, respectively. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant decreases (p<0.0001) in muscle tension as measured on the MAS. The difference between the Nabota and Botox groups was 0.0129, with a 95% confidence interval (-0.2062, 0.2319). Since the upper limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval of the difference in changes was 0.2319, Nabota was found to be non-inferior to Botox. As a secondary endpoint, the average change in muscle tension as measured on the MAS of both groups as compared to baseline, when measured at week 8 and week 12, remained statistically significant at all points in time.

After administration of the treatment, adverse events occurred in 19.6% of the subjects in the Nabota group and 19.4% of the subjects in the Botox group. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 3.1% of the subjects in the Nabota group and in 4.1% of the subjects in the Botox group. There was one serious adverse event, a radius fracture that occurred in the Nabota group, which was assessed as not study drug-related. Botulinum neutralizing antibody testing was conducted using mouse bio-assay, and there were no “positive” subjects found in either group. Nabota is now approved for post-stroke upper limb spasticity in South Korea.

Daewoong South Korean Clinical Development for Blepharospasm

Daewoong has conducted a blepharospasm Phase 2/3 comparator study in South Korea. It was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, active drug controlled, Phase 3 clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of Nabota to Botox. This study was the basis for registration and approval of Nabota with the MFDS for the blepharospasm indication in South Korea. Patients diagnosed with facial spasms prior to the start date of the study and found to be eligible based on the screening test result were randomized to either Nabota or Botox. Treatment consisted of intramuscular injections into the medial and lateral pretarsal orbicularis oculi of the upper lid and lateral pretarsal orbicularis oculi of the lower lid of up to 46.88± 9.46 units of Nabota or 46.86± 9.46 units of Botox; the total dose depended on the severity of the spasms. In order to assess efficacy and safety after the treatment, follow-up visits were performed at four, eight and 12 weeks.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to change patients’ lives by enhancing the therapeutic botulinum toxin treatment paradigm for patients suffering from debilitating conditions. To achieve this goal, we plan to:

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe the successful pursuit of our strategy will be driven by the following competitive strengths:

Manufacturing

Daewoong is our sole supplier of ABP-450. Daewoong has over 70 years of experience manufacturing pharmaceutical products and is one of the largest pharmaceutical drug companies in South Korea. Daewoong recently constructed a facility in South Korea for the purposes of producing ABP-450 drug product, which was purpose-built to comply with FDA and EMA regulations. We believe this facility will be sufficient to meet demand for ABP-450 for the foreseeable future. The FDA conducted a cGMP and pre-approval inspection of the facility from November 8 to November 17, 2017. The United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency also completed an inspection of the manufacturing facility in February 2018 in connection with Evolus’ MAA for Jeuveau. Evolus’ FDA approval of Jeuveau in February 2019 included approval to manufacture Jeuveau at Daewoong’s facility. A

separate pre-licensure inspection may be required for any BLA we submit for any of our product candidates and we believe that Daewoong’s manufacturing facility is, and will remain, compliant with FDA and EMA cGMP requirements.

While Jeuveau and ABP-450 are both manufactured by Daewoong, both we and Evolus retain separate, independent oversight rights related to Daewoong’s compliance with cGMP, standards specified by good manufacturing practice, and all other applicable regulatory guidelines and requirements. Evolus retains independent oversight and responsibility for the quality and pharmacovigilance of Jeuveau under its BLA and related international approvals; similarly, we retain independent oversight and responsibility for the quality and pharmacovigilance of ABP-450 under our original BLA, if approved.

Daewoong manufactures the ABP-450 drug substance in a separate facility on the same campus. The manufacture of ABP-450 drug substance is based on the fermentation of Daewoong’s C. botulinum cell line, followed by isolation and purification of the drug substance. Daewoong has received a United States patent for the production process.

Daewoong is a defendant in several lawsuits brought by Medytox, alleging, among other things, that Daewoong stole Medytox’s botulinum toxin bacterial strain and misappropriated trade secrets of Medytox, including those used by Daewoong to manufacture ABP-450. Daewoong is also a respondent to a complaint made by Medytox and Allergan to the United States ITC, containing substantially similar allegations regarding the alleged theft of Medytox’s botulinum toxin bacterial strain and misappropriation of Medytox’s trade secrets, which is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We were also a defendant in the lawsuit brought by Medytox in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting allegations that are substantially similar to those in the Korea Litigation. In June 2021, we settled all outstanding claims with Medytox and entered into a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing, irrevocable license that permits us to commercialize and manufacture ABP-450. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties — A material breach by us of the terms of our license and settlement agreement with Medytox, Inc. could have a material adverse effect on our business.”

Daewoong License and Supply Agreement

On December 20, 2019, we entered into the Daewoong Agreement, pursuant to which Daewoong agreed to manufacture and supply ABP-450 and grant us an exclusive license for therapeutic indications to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale, and otherwise commercialize or exploit ABP-450 in the United States and its territories and possessions, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and South Africa, which we refer to collectively as the “covered territories.”

Daewoong has agreed to exclusively supply us with, and we have agreed to exclusively obtain from Daewoong all of our requirements of ABP-450 at agreed-upon transfer prices, with no milestone or royalty payments and no minimum purchase requirements. Daewoong is responsible for all costs related to the manufacturing of ABP-450, including costs related to the operation and upkeep of its manufacturing facility, and we are responsible for all costs related to obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval, including clinical expenses, and commercialization of ABP-450. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to: (i) obtain all regulatory approvals necessary for ABP-450 to be marketed and commercialized in the covered territories for therapeutic indications and (ii) commercialize ABP-450 in the covered territories for therapeutic indications. During the term of the Daewoong Agreement, we cannot purchase, sell or distribute any injectable botulinum toxin that is launched in the covered territories after the effective date of the Daewoong Agreement other than ABP-450 in the covered territories or sell ABP-450 outside a covered territory.

Under the Daewoong Agreement, Daewoong grants us an exclusive, irrevocable, sub-licensable, assignable, fully paid-up license during the term to use Daewoong’s trademarks to Nabota in our commercialization and related obligations surrounding marketing authorizations of ABP-450 for therapeutic uses in the covered territories.

The initial term of the Daewoong Agreement is from December 20, 2019 to the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the grant of approval from the relevant governmental authority necessary to market and sell ABP-450 in the covered territories or (ii) December 20, 2029, and automatically renews for unlimited additional three-year terms thereafter, provided the Daewoong Agreement is not earlier terminated. The Daewoong Agreement will terminate upon written notice (A) by either us or Daewoong upon a continuing default that remains uncured within 90 days (or 30 days for a payment default) by the other party, or (B) immediately upon written notice if the breach is not capable of cure; (C) upon any of the following without notice: (i) our bankruptcy, insolvency or a petition for either, (ii) our assignment of our business or the Daewoong Agreement in whole or in part for the benefit of creditors, (iii) appointment of a receiver over any of our assets not vacated in sixty days, or (iv) filing of any other petition based upon our alleged bankruptcy or insolvency not dismissed within ninety days, or (D) our failure to commercialize or conduct clinical studies related to ABP-450

for a six month period. In the event the license is terminated for either of the reasons listed in (C) or (D) of the foregoing sentence, Daewoong will have the right to buy our intellectual property and data, which represents the majority of AEON’s valuable assets, for one dollar ($1.00), which right will terminate in the event Daewoong sells more than fifty percent (50%) of its ownership (inclusive of shares received in connection with the conversion of the Convertible Notes).

We will be the sole owner of any marketing authorization we pursue related to therapeutic indications of ABP-450 in a covered territory. This will include ownership of any BLA that we may submit to the FDA, MAA that we may submit to the EMA, NDS that we may submit to Health Canada, and any other approvals we receive in a covered territory. However, if we do not renew the Daewoong Agreement or upon termination of the Daewoong Agreement due to a breach by us, we are obligated to transfer our rights to Daewoong.

The Daewoong Agreement also provides that Daewoong will indemnify us for any losses arising out of Daewoong’s willful misconduct or gross negligence in performing its obligations under the agreement, Daewoong’s breach of the agreement, or any allegation that ABP-450 or Daewoong’s trademark infringes or misappropriates the rights of a third party, except, in each case, as a result of our willful misconduct or gross negligence. We have agreed to indemnify Daewoong for any losses arising out of our willful misconduct or gross negligence in performing our obligations under the agreement, or our breach of the agreement, except, in each case, as a result of Daewoong’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.

For more information associated with this and other risks, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties.” Following the settlement between us and Medytox, on July 29, 2022, we amended the Daewoong Agreement and agreed to release any potential indemnification claims associated with the Company’s settlement with Medytox.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection related to our product candidate in our proposed therapeutic indications, novel methods of use, and other know-how and for future product candidates. Our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary or intellectual property rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary and intellectual property rights will be important to our performance. We protect, and will continue to protect, our proprietary technology and methods by, among other methods, filing United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, methods of use, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business as well as by maintaining trade secret protection and through other confidentiality procedures. In November 2023, the Company was issued a patent for its treatment paradigm (U.S. Patent No. 11,826,405) involving fewer injections than the current botulinum toxin treatment option for migraine. Although we own pending United States patent applications related to ABP-450, with the exception of our treatment paradigm patent, such pending applications have not issued as a patent, and we do not otherwise own or in-license any issued patents in or outside the United States.

Under the Daewoong Agreement, Daewoong agreed to exclusively manufacture and supply ABP-450 to us and grant us an exclusive license for therapeutic indications to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale and otherwise commercialize and exploit ABP-450 in the covered territories. Daewoong has a United States patent on its proprietary botulinum toxin manufacturing process for ABP-450. At this time, we own one issued patent, six pending Patent Cooperation Treaty international patent applications, no pending United States provisional patents and six pending United States nonprovisional patent applications related to ABP-450, including certain novel methods and protocols of injecting for the treatment of migraine and gastroparesis. If issued, these patents would expire in 2040. We also rely on know-how, copyright, trademarks, and trade secret laws to protect our proprietary advancements and competitive advantage. Such protection is also maintained using confidentiality agreements.

It is possible that our current pending patents, or patents which we may later acquire or license may be successfully challenged or invalidated in whole or in part. It is also possible that we may not obtain issued patents from our pending patent applications or other inventions we seek to protect. Due to uncertainties inherent in prosecuting patent applications, it is possible that our pending patent applications will be rejected. It is also possible that we may develop proprietary products or technologies in the future that are not patentable or that the patents of others will limit or altogether preclude our ability to do business. In addition, any patent issued to us may provide us with little or no competitive advantage, in which case we may abandon such patent or license it to another entity. Additionally, we own trademark applications in the United States for AEON & Design, AEON BIOPHARMA & Design and AEON BIOPHARMA, which have been refused registration at the Trademark Office on the grounds of an alleged likelihood of confusion

with prior registrations for AEON and EON owed by a third party for nutritional supplements. We have filed a petition to cancel the third-party marks with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

In addition to our reliance on patent protection for ABP-450 and future product candidates, we also rely on our and our licensors’ trade secrets, know-how, confidentiality agreements and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, these agreements may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. As a result, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, and other third parties to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived of by the individual during the course of employment, and which relate to or are reasonably capable of being used in our current or planned business or R&D are our exclusive property. However, such agreements and any security policies may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for such breaches. For more information, see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovation. It also requires, among other things, the ability to effectively discover, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for novel products, as well as the ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products, including communicating the effectiveness, safety and value of products to actual and prospective customers and medical professionals. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of products competitive with those that we are developing. Many of our competitors have greater resources than we have. This enables them, among other things, to leverage their financial resources to make greater R&D, marketing and promotion investments than us. Our competitors may also have more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Our technologies and products may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors.

As more companies develop new intellectual property in our markets, the possibility of a competitor acquiring patent or other rights that may limit our products or potential products increases, which could lead to litigation. In addition to product development, testing, approval and promotion, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include industry consolidation, product quality and price, product technology, reputation, customer service and access to technical information.

We are currently focusing our clinical efforts on the use of botulinum toxins to treat migraine, cervical dystonia, and gastroparesis and expect to pursue indications to treat other therapeutic conditions. We expect to compete directly with other injectable botulinum toxins and other pharmaceuticals that are currently utilized and being developed for each of these disease states.

Injectable Botulinum Toxins

Our primary competitors for ABP-450 in the injectable botulinum toxin pharmaceutical market for therapeutic use are Botox, Dysport, Xeomin, Myobloc, a type-B botulinum toxin serotype marketed by U.S. WorldMeds, and Revance’s botulinum toxin, Daxxify. Revance has entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Viatris Inc., to develop and commercialize a biosimilar to Botox. Each of Botox, Dysport, Xeomin, Myobloc and Daxxify are approved by the FDA for the treatment of cervical dystonia. Botox is currently the only botulinum toxin approved for the treatment of chronic migraine, although we believe that a clinical study is being conducted to evaluate Dysport for the treatment of chronic migraine. There are no approved botulinum toxins approved for the treatment of gastroparesis and, to our knowledge, there are no active clinical studies evaluating the potential of another neurotoxin to treat gastroparesis.

We are aware of competing botulinum toxins currently being developed or commercialized in the United States, the European Union, Asia, South America, and other markets. While some of these products may not meet United States regulatory standards, the companies operating in these markets may be able to produce products at a lower cost than United States and European manufacturers. In addition to the injectable botulinum toxin dose forms, we are aware that other companies are developing topical botulinum toxins for therapeutic indications.

Preventative Treatment of Migraine

Beta Blockers, Anti-Epileptics, and Triptans

Botox is approved for the preventative treatment of chronic migraine and certain other agents are used as first-and second-line treatments for the prevention of migraine, including triptans, beta blockers, and anti-epileptics.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)

We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from companies that provide treatment options with other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical products. For the preventative treatment of chronic migraine, we will face competition from CGRP agonists, including Aimovig (erenumab) marketed by Amgen Inc., Ajovy (fremenezumab) marketed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Emgality (galcenezumab) marketed by Eli Lilly and Company. Each of Aimovig, Ajovy and Emgality are self-administered by a monthly subcutaneous injection. In 2020, Vyepti (eptinezumab) marketed by Lundbeck A/S was approved for the prevention of migraine and is administered every 3 months by intravenous infusion. In addition, Qulipta (atogepant) marketed by AbbVie and Nurtec ODT (rimegepant) marketed by Pfizer Inc. have recently been approved for the prevention of migraine via once-daily, orally administered products in 2021 and 2023, respectively. The FDA has also accepted a New Drug Application for vazegepant, marketed by Pfizer Inc., to be used as an intranasal formulation for both the acute treatment and prevention of migraine. If approved, this therapy will be commercially available for the treatment of migraine prior to ABP-450. Notably, initial positive data has been published studying the reduction in migraine days when a botulinum toxin is used in combination with CGRP, suggesting that combination therapy could provide further reduction in MMD than either botulinum toxin or CGRPs alone.

Other Treatments

We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from companies that provide treatment options with other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical products. For the treatment of cervical dystonia, in addition to other injectable botulinum toxins, we will face competition from orally administered anticholinergic, GABA receptor agonist, benzodiazepine, dopaminergic and anticonvulsant pharmaceuticals. For the treatment of gastroparesis, we will face competition from prokinetic agents, including REGLAN (IV administered metoclopramide) and Gimoti (nasal spray metoclopramide), which are the only medications currently approved by FDA for the treatment of gastroparesis.

Government Regulation

We operate in a highly regulated industry that is subject to significant federal, state, local and foreign regulation. Our business has been, and will continue to be, subject to a variety of laws including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, among others. Biological products or “biologics,” which are the focus of our business, are subject to regulation under the FFDCA and PHS Act. Our products, if approved, will be regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered and licensed facilities in compliance with cGMP for biologics. Among other things, biologics require clinical studies to demonstrate product safety and efficacy (i.e., that the product is safe, pure and potent), and the submission and approval of a BLA for marketing authorization. Also, various federal and state laws govern the R&D, testing, investigation, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, regulatory approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of these products. Failure to comply with applicable United States requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending license or marketing applications, warning letters, enforcement actions, import alerts or detentions, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, withdrawal of approval, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

United States Biological Products Development Process

The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Nonclinical Studies

Biological product development in the United States typically involves nonclinical or “preclinical” (e.g., laboratory or animal) testing. Nonclinical tests often include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with applicable federal regulations and requirements including GLPs, among other requirements. The results of initial nonclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, any relevant prior clinical experience, and a proposed clinical study protocol. Additional nonclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted and generally must be included in the BLA.

Clinical Studies

Prior to beginning the first clinical study with a product candidate, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol or protocols for preclinical and clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product, chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. For clinical studies in the United States or otherwise regulated by the FDA, a 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has not raised questions or concerns relating to the IND and placed the IND on clinical hold within this 30-day period, the clinical study proposed in the IND may begin. If the FDA does place the IND on clinical hold, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns to the FDA’s satisfaction before the clinical study can begin.

Clinical studies for a product candidate may involve the administration of the investigational biologic to subjects under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators. Clinical studies must be conducted pursuant to an IND and in compliance with state and federal regulations and GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of subjects and to define the roles of clinical study sponsors, administrators, and monitors, as well as under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness 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 FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical study at any time or impose other requirements or sanctions if it believes that the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical study subjects. The clinical study protocol, any protocol amendments, and informed consent information for subjects in clinical studies must

also be submitted to an IRB for approval. An IRB may require the clinical study at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions before approving the study for initiation. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent form that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative, and the IRB must monitor the clinical study until completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical and clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Human clinical studies are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Concurrently with clinical studies, companies may complete additional nonclinical studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMPs and also CMC requirements that are approved as part of the BLA. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the finished product. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Biological License Applications (BLAs)

Pursuant to the PHS Act Section 351, in order to market a biological product, an entity must submit and receive approval of a BLA based on a demonstration that (a) the biological product that is the subject of the application is safe, pure, and potent; and (b) the facility in which the biological product is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure that the

biological product continues to be safe, pure, and potent. When an FDA application is approved in the first instance, it is an “original BLA” which is assigned a BLA number by the FDA.

An approved “original” BLA may be supplemented (amended) to incorporate changes. Specifically, FDA regulations state that an applicant holding a BLA “shall submit a supplement,” and receive FDA approval of a supplement, before implementing the addition of a new indication, and other changes that may have a substantial potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the product. When approved, the supplement incorporates the changes into the BLA under the original BLA number. It is also possible that an applicant may, in some cases, submit a separate original application instead of a supplement based on intended changes and discussions with FDA. However, if an entity does not hold a BLA, a supplement would not be an option.

A BLA holder is legally responsible for all regulatory obligations associated with the BLA, including each supplement thereto, and is the only party that would be authorized to submit a supplement. If an entity does not hold a BLA, it does not hold an application to supplement and would generally need to submit an original BLA. Companies typically submit a BLA sometime after they have developed data necessary to support the safety, purity, and potency (safety and effectiveness) for labeled indication(s) and method(s) of use. We expect to submit our original BLA after such data has been developed. From an FDA regulatory perspective, we believe we will be eligible to submit an original BLA for our product candidate (ABP-450) because we do not hold a BLA for ABP-450 that we could supplement. As such, an original BLA would be the appropriate option for our first BLA submission. For clarity, although we will not physically manufacture products (the product will be produced by Daewoong), FDA recognizes that separate parties can serve as a BLA holder for a product (responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance) and the physical manufacturer that will produce for a BLA holder pursuant to contract (i.e., a “contract manufacturer”). Thus, we plan to submit, and ultimately hold, an approved original BLA for the ABP-450 product that is contract manufactured by Daewoong.

We are aware that a separate legal entity — Evolus — markets a product called Jeuveau (prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs), also manufactured by Daewoong, which is very similar to our ABP-450 product, but has been approved for cosmetic indications. We are developing ABP-450 for therapeutic (not cosmetic) indications, will be marketing under a different trade name, and may potentially incorporate other changes. Evolus and AEON are distinct legal entities, will maintain their own manufacturing arrangements with Daewoong, and will market products with different indications and trade names, at minimum. As such, we believe it is appropriate that we maintain separate and distinct regulatory obligations for ABP-450, which would be accomplished by submitting and receiving approval for an original BLA.

The form of BLA approval is pertinent because payors will generally consider the pricing for all products falling under the same BLA together when calculating reimbursement rates. Notably, Medicare Part B payments for prescription drugs factor in prices for all versions of a drug, even when certain versions of the drug may be used primarily in situations that are not covered by the program (such as cosmetic applications). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, has interpreted the Medicare statute to require that: (1) all versions of a product listed under the same BLA must be considered the same drug or biological, for payments made under Section 1847A of the Social Security Act, and (2) for a product marketed under the same approval number, labeling that indicates that a version may be used primarily when the drug is not covered under Part B (e.g., the version is for self-administration only, or for cosmetic use) cannot be used as a basis to exclude that version from a payment amount calculation.

In the event we are not able to obtain an original BLA, we may not be able to ensure the consistent pricing that we believe an original BLA would offer, and the ASP of our products could be adversely affected.

BLA Submission and Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, a BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The BLA must include the results of all nonclinical, clinical and other testing, and a compilation of data relating to the product’s CMCs. The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. The submission of most BLAs is additionally subject to a substantial application fee, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual program fees.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA 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, and such decision could result in a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of BLAs. The FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing.

Priority review designation will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for products that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions compared to available therapies. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed and held meets regulatory standards designed to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, potency, quality, and purity. The FDA may also refer applications for novel biologics products or biologics products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee but often follows some or all of its recommendations.

In addition to the above, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA applicant, absent a deferment or waiver, must develop a pediatric development plan and, potentially, conduct pediatric studies prior to submission of the BLA.

Pre-licensure inspections are often conducted at one or more clinical study sites and may be conducted at nonclinical testing sites as well. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biological product is manufactured prior to approval. The FDA will not approve the BLA unless it determines that compliance with cGMP is satisfactory. Manufacturers of biologics also must comply with the FDA’s general biological product standards and approved CMC requirements.

After the FDA evaluates the BLA and information from any pre-licensure inspections or other data sources, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, including additional large-scale clinical 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 BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to the goal of reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the finished biological product within the United States with specific labeling (e.g., prescribing information) for specific indications. As a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy and may impose other conditions, including labeling restrictions, which can materially affect the product’s potential market and profitability. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with REMS to ensure the benefits of the product continue to outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems or safety issues are identified following initial marketing. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, ingredients or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented.

A BLA 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 BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

Any marketing application for a biologic submitted to the FDA for approval may be eligible for FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and accelerated approval.

A product is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month timeframe from the date a complete BLA is accepted for filing, if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The

FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

In addition, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If a product is so designated, the FDA will take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Additionally, products that may fulfill an unmet medical need and are studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled Phase 4 post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Failure to confirm efficacy in post-marketing studies or otherwise comply with the conditions of accelerated approval could result in withdrawal of approval. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review and approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, priority review, fast track designation, and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. 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 reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturers’ communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

In addition to the FDA’s post-approval requirements, various state laws governing manufacturing, marketing, and distribution often apply, and state licenses may need to be obtained and renewed on a periodic basis in order to continue operations in specific states.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The ACA, signed into law in 2010, includes a subtitle called the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alteration or switch. Interchangeable biosimilars may be substituted for original BLA biologics at the pharmacy level, state pharmacy laws permitting.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until twelve years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. A reference biological product is granted twelve years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a

modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product, that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. During this twelve-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products.

A biologic can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study. In some instances, the same studies can satisfy both PREA and pediatric exclusivity requirements.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the twelve-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to uncertainty.

Government Regulation in Europe

In the EEA (which is composed of the 27 Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein), medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of MAs:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Data and marketing exclusivity. In the EEA, new products authorized for marketing, or reference products, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical study data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the European Union during a period of eight

years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the European Union. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

Pediatric investigation plan. In the EEA, marketing authorization applications for new medicinal products not authorized have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical study data can be waived by the PDCO when the data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all Member States of the European Union and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension.

Clinical studies. Clinical studies of medicinal products in the European Union must be conducted in accordance with European Union and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on GCPs. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical studies of advanced therapy medicinal products. If the sponsor of the clinical study is not established within the European Union, it must appoint an entity within the European Union to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical study insurance policy, and in most European Union countries, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical study.

Prior to commencing a clinical study, the sponsor must obtain a clinical trial authorization from the competent authority, and a positive opinion from an independent ethics committee. The application for a clinical trial authorization must include, among other things, a copy of the study protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. Currently, clinical trial authorization applications must be submitted to the competent authority in each EU Member State in which the study will be conducted.

Under the new Regulation on Clinical Trials, which took effect in 2022, there is now in place a centralized application procedure where one national authority takes the lead in reviewing the application and the other national authorities have only a limited involvement. Any substantial changes to the study protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees. Medicines used in clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP.

The European Union requirements for research and investigation, approval, and post-market activities, may vary substantially from United States requirements. As such, approval in one jurisdiction is not predictive of potential for approval in the other jurisdiction.

Product Approval Process Outside the United States and Europe

In addition to regulations in the United States and European Union, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing manufacturing, clinical studies, commercial sales, and distribution of our future products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval or MA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain approval of the product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before commencing clinical studies or marketing in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval or MA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, post-market activities and obligations, enforcement mechanisms, penalties for violation in the event of noncompliance, pricing, and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

United States Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business that may constrain the financial arrangements

and relationships through which we research, as well as sell, market, and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing authorization. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and responsible individuals may be subject to imprisonment.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidate for which we may seek regulatory approval. Sales in the United States will depend, in part, on the availability of sufficient coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, which include government health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the 340B Drug Discount program, TRICARE, and the Veterans Administration, as well as managed care organizations and private health insurers. Prices at which we or our customers seek reimbursement for our product candidates can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by third-party payors. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be available. Additionally, in the United States there is no uniform policy among payors for coverage or reimbursement. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval processes. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, successful commercialization of, and obtaining a satisfactory financial return on, any product we develop may not be possible.

Third-party payors 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. In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for marketing, we may need to conduct expensive studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, which would be in addition to the costs expended to obtain regulatory approvals. Third-party payors may not consider our product candidates to be medically necessary or cost-effective compared to other available therapies or the rebate percentages required to secure favorable coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost or may not enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. The ACA, enacted in March 2010, has substantially changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers. Among other things, the ACA included the following provisions:

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are undergoing or have undergone legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will remain in effect through the first 6 months of 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. These reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and phased-in again on April 1, 2022 (between April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022, a 1% cut took effect, with a 2% cut in place for the remainder of 2022). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 partially mitigated more severe Medicare pay cuts previously scheduled to begin on January 1, 2023; physician payment rates were reduced by 2% in 2023, and were reduced by 3.4% in 2024. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Notably, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” (IRA) into law, incorporating many key provisions of the “Build Back Better Act”. Prescription drug price reform is a focal point of this landmark legislation that incorporates many proposals advanced over the last decade to overhaul drug costs under the Medicare program. Key provisions of the law permit CMS to negotiate Part D drug prices for an increasing number of drugs over a five-year period, replace the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program with a new Manufacturer Refund Program for drugs not subject to negotiation, and redesign the Part D benefit to eliminate the coverage gap and realign the cost responsibility in the initial and catastrophic phases of coverage among payors, manufacturers, Government and patients (capping out-of-pocket costs at US$2,000 starting in 2025). In addition, the law penalizes drug manufacturers for price increases that outpace the rate of inflation (for products under Medicare Parts D/B).

The IRA follows years of attempts by the federal government to reform and/or control drug pricing. For example, at the federal level, the previous administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 included a US$135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. The Biden administration has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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.

Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical study and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical studies and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Another potential area of further healthcare reform is the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which was created by Congress in 1992 to “stretch scarce Federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” Drug manufacturers are incentivized to participate in this program as any manufacturer who wants their medication covered by Medicaid must also provide a discount to 340B covered entities, which includes a variety of healthcare entities that must abide by certain eligibility criteria in order to participate. This program requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to eligible entities at a significantly discounted price which can result in savings between 20-50% or more.

Growth of the 340B program has continued to accelerate as more entities participate in the program and, thus, more patients qualify for 340B drugs. The value of the drug purchases by covered entities through the 340B program has grown exponentially year-over-year, with 2022 data indicating that discounted drugs purchased through the 340B program reached approximately $53.7 billion annually. In the last decade drug manufacturers have opposed the 340B program publicly, as the program has experienced significant growth which corresponds to greater lost revenue potential for the manufacturers. There is a high degree of legal, legislative and public scrutiny as manufacturers have challenged some aggressive covered entity practices in litigation (with mixed success) and legislative reform proposals seek great transparency and accountability by the participating entities. Nonetheless, there is general industry consensus that the program will remain available in the long-term and there is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to have a material impact on the financial performance of manufacturers as program growth further erodes manufacturer revenue.

Data Privacy and Security Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to data privacy and security regulation by the federal government, states and non- United States jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” those independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain, transmit, or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state and non-United States laws govern the privacy and security of health and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

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 now and in the future 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 of products from reimbursement under government programs, 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.

For more on the risks associated with data privacy and security, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Government Regulation — We are subject to stringent and often unsettled privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations could adversely affect our business.”

Employees

As of December 31, 2024, we had five employees. Our employees are primarily located in Irvine, California. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement, and we believe our relations with our employees are good.

Facilities

Our principal executive office is located at 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750, Irvine, California 92614. In September 2021, we entered into a lease agreement for 8,000 square feet of office space located at this facility, with a lease term of 36 months beginning in December 2021 and ending in December 2024. In March 2024, we entered into an amendment to extend the lease to an additional five years. We may look for additional or alternate space for our operations, and we believe that suitable additional or alternative space will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

Legal Proceedings

On September 18, 2023, Odeon Capital Group LLC (“Odeon”) filed a lawsuit against us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that we failed to pay Odeon’s deferred underwriting fee of $1.25 million. Odeon claims that it served as the underwriter for Priveterra Acquisition Corp., the special purpose acquisition company with which Old AEON merged with and into in July 2023. Odeon seeks monetary damages for the full amount of its claimed underwriting fee, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other amounts. In November 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims included in Odeon’s complaint. In April 2024, we successfully obtained a dismissal of Odeon’s non-breach of contract claims, including the tort claims, breach of covenant claim and associated punitive damages claim. Odeon’s breach of contract claim is proceeding, with each party filing a summary judgment motion in March 2025, which the court is expected to decide upon in the coming months.

​

Item 1A. Risk Factors

RISK FACTORS

We are subject to various risks and uncertainties in the course of our business. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this report before making an investment in our Class A common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (“Common Stock”). Our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs, and as a result, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those set forth below.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Financial Position

​

We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. If we ever achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain it.

​

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Old AEON was originally incorporated in 2012 but did not begin focusing its efforts and financial resources on the clinical development and regulatory approval of ABP-450 for therapeutic indications until 2019. The operating history upon which investors must evaluate our business and prospects is limited. Consequently, any predictions about our future success, performance or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating

history or a history of commercial operations. In addition, as an organization, we have limited experience and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical market. To date, we have not obtained any regulatory approvals for ABP-450 or generated any revenue from product sales relating to ABP-450. On May 16, 2024, we announced the discontinuation of our Phase 2 double blind study of ABP-450 in the treatment of episodic migraine and chronic migraine, which had previously completed enrollment and dosing of patients, and ceased enrollment and dosing of patients in our open label extension study related to such study, in order to implement certain cash preservation measures while the Company continues to evaluate its strategic options. On July 9, 2024, we announced a strategic reprioritization to seek regulatory approval of ABP-450 as a biosimilar product in the United States through submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, under Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, or a Section 351(k) BLA, using AbbVie Inc.’s product Botox as the reference product, for all of the indications for which Botox is approved, other than the cosmetic uses (for which we do not hold development or commercialization rights). We held an initial meeting with the FDA in the third quarter of 2024 during which we aligned with the FDA on the next steps to develop a Botox biosimilar. We commenced analytical studies in the fourth quarter of 2024 to prepare for a potential Biosimilar Biological Product Development (“BPD”) Type 2a meeting with the FDA in the second half of 2025 to review the results from the studies.

​

Because we have not yet received regulatory approvals, we are not permitted to market ABP-450 for any use in the United States or in any other territory, and as such, we have not generated any revenue from sales of ABP-450 to date. We have recorded income from operations of $73.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, mainly due to gain on fair value of contingent consideration of $100.8 million, and losses from operations of $29.6 million and $318.4 million for the periods from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor), respectively. We have recorded net income of $42.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, mainly due to gain on fair value of contingent consideration, and net losses of $60.7 million and $324.0 million for the periods from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor), respectively. As of December 31, 2024, we had $13 thousand in cash and cash equivalents. As a result of our ongoing losses, as of December 31, 2024 (Successor), we had an accumulated deficit of $431.6 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to seek regulatory approval for, and begin to commercialize, ABP- 450, if approved. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity (deficit) and working capital. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, if at all, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, may adversely affect the market price of common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.

​

Our management has concluded that uncertainties around our ability to raise additional capital raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We will require additional financing to fund our future operations. Any failure to obtain additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our operations.

​

We have concluded that we do not have sufficient cash to fund our operations and to meet our obligations as they become due within one year from the date that our consolidated financial statements are issued and as a result, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our ability to continue as a going concern is an issue raised as a result of ongoing operating losses and a lack of financing commitments to meet cash requirements, and is subject to our ability to generate a profit or obtain appropriate financing from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of our securities or obtaining loans from third parties where possible. We will need to raise additional capital to fund our operations. We cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may materially limit our ability to raise additional funds through the issuance of new debt or equity securities or otherwise and no assurance can be given that sufficient funding will be available when needed to allow us to continue as a going concern. This perception may also make it more difficult to operate our business due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. If we cannot 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 our stockholders may lose some or all of their investment in us.

​

We expect that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future in order to complete development of and seek regulatory approval for ABP-450 as a biosimilar to Botox, identify future potential therapeutic applications for ABP-450 and establish sales and marketing capabilities to commercialize ABP-450 across any approved indications.

​

As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan into the fourth quarter of 2025. We have based these estimates, however, on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could spend our available capital resources much faster than we currently expect or require more capital to fund our operations than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

​

​

If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable rights to our product candidate(s), technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or may have to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we raise additional capital through public or private equity offerings or offerings of securities convertible into our equity, the ownership interest of stockholders will be diluted and the terms of any such securities may have a preference over our common stock. Debt financing, receivables financing and royalty financing may also be coupled with an equity component, such as warrants to purchase our capital stock, which could also result in dilution of our existing stockholders’ ownership, and such dilution may be material.

​

Furthermore, if we raise additional capital through debt financing, we will have increased fixed payment obligations and may be subject to covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt or making capital expenditures to meet specified financial ratios, and other operational restrictions, any of which could restrict our ability to commercialize ABP-450 or to operate as a business and may result in liens being placed on our assets. If we were to default on any of our indebtedness, we could lose such assets. Additional funding may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. The global credit and financial markets have experienced volatility and disruptions recently, including diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates, and uncertainty about economic stability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly or more dilutive.

​

Our future success currently depends entirely on the successful and timely regulatory approval and commercialization of our only product candidate, ABP-450. The development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products is subject to extensive regulation, and we may not obtain regulatory approvals for ABP-450 on a timely basis or at all.

​

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of biological products, including ABP-450, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the U.S. and by comparable foreign regulatory authorities in foreign markets. Regulatory approval of biologics in the United States requires the submission of a BLA to the FDA. A BLA must be supported by extensive clinical and preclinical data, as well as extensive information regarding pharmacology, chemistry, manufacturing and controls demonstrating the safety, purity and potency of the biological product for its intended uses. FDA approval of a BLA is not guaranteed, and the review and approval process is an expensive and uncertain process that may take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval of a product candidate is never guaranteed. Of the large number of

drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized.

​

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that our product candidate, ABP-450, is safe and effective for its intended uses and in the case of biological products in the U.S., such as ABP-450, that such product candidate is safe, pure and potent for its intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe that the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates, including ABP-450, are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval for further development, manufacturing or commercialization of our product candidates by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program, requiring their alteration. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical studies that will be required for BLA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or the condition that the product candidate is designed to treat and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate.

​

The FDA and other regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including the following:

​

​

If ABP-450 fails to demonstrate the requisite safety, purity, potency or biosimilarity in our planned clinical studies or does not gain approval, our business and results of operations will be materially and adversely harmed.

​

We are currently planning to pursue approval for ABP-450 in the United States as a biosimilar to Botox, and our business presently depends entirely on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for ABP-450 and to successfully commercialize it in a timely manner. To date, as an organization, we have completed one clinical study evaluating ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia. We originally intended to pursue submission of an Original BLA seeking one or more potential therapeutic indications for ABP-450. However, our Phase 2 clinical trials for episodic and chronic migraine did not meet their respective primary endpoints. In May 2024,

we announced the discontinuation of our Phase 2 clinical trials for episodic and chronic migraine in order to implement certain cash preservation measures. As a result, on July 9, 2024, we announced a strategic reprioritization to pursue a Section 351(k) BLA for ABP-450, using AbbVie Inc.’s product Botox as a proposed reference product, for which we would seek approval for all of the indications for which Botox is approved, other than the cosmetic uses. We held an initial meeting with the FDA in the third quarter of 2024 during which we aligned with the FDA on next steps to develop a Botox biosimilar. We commenced analytical studies in the fourth quarter of 2024 to prepare for a potential Biosimilar Biological Product Development (“BPD”) Type 2a meeting with the FDA in the second half of 2025 to review the results from the studies.

Although we believe ABP-450 represents a favorable candidate to develop as a biosimilar product, the FDA may indicate that a biosimilar pathway is not feasible, or prohibitively challenging, with a neurotoxin. For example, the FDA could require us to perform analytical testing procedures for ABP-450 that are not technologically feasible, or could disagree that the results from a single pivotal study could support submission of a Section 351(k) BLA. Even if the FDA acknowledges that ABP-450 has the potential to be developed as a biosimilar product, we may not be able to successfully complete our planned clinical study, or successfully prepare, submit, and obtain approval of a Section 351(k) BLA in a timely manner, or at all.

​

We have no products currently approved for sale and we may never be able to develop marketable products. We are not permitted to market ABP-450 in the United States unless we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA or approval of a similar application in any other countries permitted under the Daewoong Agreement. We can provide no assurances that ABP-450 will be successful in clinical studies or will ultimately receive regulatory approval. In addition, if we receive approval in one country, we may not receive a similar approval in any other jurisdiction.

​

Even if we obtain regulatory approvals for ABP-450 we may never be able to successfully commercialize ABP-450. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities, including by obtaining approval for coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payors, but we may not be successful in such a transition. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of ABP-450 to continue our business.

​

Clinical product development involves a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. We may incur greater costs than we anticipate or encounter substantial delays or difficulties in our clinical studies.

​

We may not commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate, including ABP-450, without obtaining regulatory approval from the FDA or other regulatory agencies, and we may never receive such approvals.

​

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical studies have nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval of their product candidates.

​

The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not predict the results of later clinical trials of the product candidate, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired characteristics despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. In particular, while we have conducted clinical studies evaluating ABP-450 in patients with cervical dystonia and migraines, we do not know whether our product candidates will perform similarly in future clinical trials. It is not uncommon to observe results in clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical studies and early clinical trials, and many product candidates fail in clinical trials despite very promising early results. For example, our Phase 2 clinical trials for episodic and chronic migraine did not meet their respective primary endpoints. As a result, in May 2024, we announced the discontinuation of our Phase 2 clinical trials for episodic and chronic migraine in order to implement certain cash preservation measures.

​

We do not know whether our planned clinical trials will be completed on schedule, if at all. We may experience numerous unforeseen events prior to, during, or as a result of, clinical studies that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or to commercialize ABP-450 or any other product candidate, including the following:

​

​

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue from future product sales or other sources. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to ABP-450, we may need to conduct additional testing to bridge our modified product candidate to earlier versions. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize ABP-450, if approved, or allow our competitors to bring competing products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize ABP-450 and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Additionally, if the results of our clinical studies are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with ABP-450, we may:

​

​

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining regulatory approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical studies will begin as planned, need to be restructured or be completed on schedule, if at all.

​

Further, we, the FDA, a foreign regulatory authority, an ethics committee or an institutional review board may suspend our clinical studies at any time if it appears that we are failing to conduct a study in accordance with regulatory requirements, including among other things, the FDA’s GCP regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA other regulatory agency finds deficiencies in our current or planned investigational new drug applications, or INDs, or other clinical study applications, or the conduct of these studies. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical studies, including our planned pivotal trial for ABP-450. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical studies, or if we terminate a clinical study prior to completion, the commercial prospects of ABP-450 could be negatively impacted, and our ability to generate revenue from ABP-450 may be delayed.

​

Additionally, certain of our scientific advisors or consultants who receive compensation from us are likely to be investigators for our future clinical studies. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical study site and the utility of the clinical study itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA and may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of ABP-450. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical study of ABP-450, the commercial prospects of ABP-450 will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical studies will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues which may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

​

Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical studies is an expensive and time-consuming process and could be delayed, made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control. If we experience delays or difficulties in enrolling patients in clinical studies, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

​

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical studies is critical to our success. We may encounter difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical studies and may compete against other clinical studies for the same pool of potential patients, thereby delaying or preventing development and potential regulatory approval of ABP-450. Even once enrolled, we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our studies on a timely basis or at all.

​

Patient enrollment in clinical trials may be affected by other factors, including:

​

​

We also rely on, and will continue to rely on, CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and preclinical studies. Though we have entered into agreements governing their services, we will have limited influence over their actual performance. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for ABP-450 and any other product candidate and jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining enrollment of such patients in our clinical trials.

​

ABP-450 may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent its regulatory approval, limit its commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential regulatory approval.

​

During the conduct of clinical studies, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries and discomforts, to their doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused or contributed to these conditions and regulatory authorities may draw different conclusions from us and require additional testing to confirm these determinations, if they occur. Any adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by, or other unexpected properties of, ABP-450 could cause us, any future collaborators, IRB, or ethics committee or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies of ABP-450 and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

​

In addition, it is possible that as we test ABP-450 in larger, longer and more extensive clinical studies, or as use of ABP-450 becomes more widespread if it receives regulatory approval, that illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were not observed in earlier studies conducted by us, or, in the case of ABP-450, by others using the same botulinum toxin, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous studies, will be reported by subjects or patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in large-scale pivotal studies or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. If additional clinical experience indicates that ABP-450 has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of ABP-450 may fail or be delayed. Additionally, there is the risk that as botulinum toxins other than ABP-450 are approved for and studied in connection with a broader range of diseases and conditions and across a more diverse population, additional safety signals and other adverse events may be identified. All botulinum toxin products are required to include a class labeling that contains a boxed warning related to safety and we could be required to include additional warnings on our product labeling, if approved.

​

Additionally, if ABP-450 or any other product candidate receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We may also be required to engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop. Other potentially significant negative consequences associated with adverse events include:

​

​

Any of these events could diminish the usage or otherwise limit the commercial success of our product candidates and prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of ABP-450, if approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

​

Results of other parties’ clinical studies involving the same or a nearly identical botulinum toxin complex as ABP-450, or results in any preclinical studies we conduct, may not be predictive of future results of our clinical studies.

​

Success in clinical studies conducted by Daewoong and Evolus, Inc., or Evolus, involving a botulinum toxin that is identical or nearly identical to ABP-450 does not ensure that any clinical studies we conduct using ABP-450 will be successful and we will still need to submit our independently generated data to applicable regulatory agencies to support regulatory approval of ABP-450. Similarly, success in any preclinical studies or clinical studies that we conduct will not ensure that later clinical studies will be successful. A number of companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical

studies, even after positive results in earlier preclinical studies and earlier clinical studies. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies, including previously unreported adverse events. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks.

​

Additionally, our clinical studies may utilize an “open-label” trial design. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate for either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical studies test only the investigational product candidate and may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical studies are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical studies are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical studies may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical studies may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical studies are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

​

Interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical studies that we may announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

​

From time to time, we may publicly disclose topline or preliminary data from our clinical studies, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive analysis of the data related to the particular study. Interim data for the studies we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues or more patient data become available. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remains subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the data previously published. As a result, the interim, topline, or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated, and any interim, topline or preliminary data should be viewed with caution until final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data could result in significant harm to our business prospects.

​

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of our product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical study is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular pharmaceutical or biological product, pharmaceutical or biological product candidate or our business. If the interim, topline or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize our product may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

​

We recently announced a strategic pivot to pursue regulatory approval for ABP-450 utilizing a 351(k) biosimilar pathway. Obtaining regulatory approvals under this novel approach may prove difficult, or even impossible, for a variety of reasons.

​

On July 9, 2024, we announced a strategic reprioritization to pursue submission of a Section 351(k) BLA for ABP-450, using AbbVie Inc.’s product Botox as a proposed reference product, for which we would seek approval for all of the indications for which Botox is approved, other than the cosmetic uses. We held an initial meeting with the FDA in the third quarter of 2024 during which we aligned with the FDA on next steps to develop a Botox biosimilar. We commenced analytical studies in the fourth quarter of 2024 to prepare for a potential Biosimilar Biological Product Development (“BPD”) Type 2a meeting with the FDA in the second half of 2025 to review the results from the studies. To obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of ABP-450 as biosimilar product, we will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA, among other things, that ABP-450 is highly similar to a biological reference product already licensed by the FDA pursuant to an approved BLA, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive

components, and that it has no clinically meaningful differences as compared to the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product.

The potential to leverage the biosimilar pathway for a neurotoxin is untested, as no biosimilar has been approved utilizing Botox as the reference product. Among other things, Section 351(k) BLAs must include an assessment of toxicity and a clinical study or studies sufficient to demonstrate safety, purity, and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is licensed and for which licensure is sought for the proposed biological product. The amount of toxin in a single vial of Botox is miniscule and comparing toxicity vial-to-vial, which could be required by the FDA, may prove prohibitively difficult.

​

We plan to pursue the biosimilar pathway for ABP-450 because this pathway offers the potential to obtain FDA approvals for all FDA-approved indications for the reference product. If we are successful in demonstrating the biosimilarity of ABP-450 to Botox and obtain regulatory approval with respect to one indication, we believe the FDA could also approve ABP-450 for one or more indications currently listed on Botox’s FDA-approved labeling without our having to conduct additional clinical trials for ABP-450, provided that the FDA determines that ABP-450 relies on a similar mechanism of action to Botox with respect to each such indication. However, even if we are able to demonstrate that ABP-450 is biosimilar to Botox with respect to one indication, the FDA may nevertheless determine that certain of Botox existing approved indications do not rely on a clearly established similar mechanism of action, which would limit our ability to seek approvals for ABP-450 without conducting additional trials. For example, pending FDA feedback, we plan to conduct a single pivotal clinical study in patients cervical dystonia. And the FDA could determine that a clinical study in cervical dystonia, a muscular disorder, even if successful, will not support a Section 350(k) BLA seeking approval for ABP-450 as a biosimilar in patients with migraine, a neurological disorder, or any of the other therapeutic (non-cosmetic) indications for which Botox is currently approved. Moreover, negative or ambiguous results from clinical trials of ABP-450 in certain patient populations, including the results from our Phase 2 trials, could adversely affect our ability to pursue certain indications in any Section 351(k) BLA. In addition, pursuant to our agreement with Daewoong, we do not have the rights to develop and commercialize ABP-450 for any of the cosmetic indications for which Botox has been approved, which further limits the market potential for ABP-450, even if we are successful in pursuing a biosimilar pathway.

​

Additionally, even if the FDA allows us to pursue a biosimilar pathway for ABP-450, and even if we are successful in demonstrating biosimilarity for ABP-450 to the satisfaction of the FDA, many manufacturers of reference biological products have used legislative, regulatory and other means, such as litigation, to delay regulatory approval and to seek to restrict competition from manufacturers of biosimilars. These efforts may include or have included:

​

​

In addition, any of these factors could prevent us from obtaining market acceptance for or otherwise successfully commercializing ABP-450, if approved as a biosimilar product.

​

Even if ABP-450 receives regulatory approval as a biosimilar or otherwise, it may fail to achieve the broad degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

​

Even if ABP-450 receives regulatory approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. The commercial success of ABP-450, if approved, will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

​

​

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates, if approved, may require significant resources and may never be successful.

​

If ABP-450 fails to gain market acceptance, this will have a material adverse impact on our ability to generate revenues to provide a satisfactory, or any, return on our investments. Even if some therapeutic indications achieve market acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenues.

​

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize the strategic pivot to pursue regulatory approval for ABP-450 utilizing a 351(k) biosimilar pathway and evaluate the development of certain therapeutic uses of ABP-450; these decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

​

While we have shifted our focus to the development and potential commercialization of ABP-450 as a biosimilar to Botox, a key element of our future strategy is to identify additional conditions for which ABP-450 may warrant further development. However, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in identifying such conditions, such as gastroparesis and PTSD. Even if we are successful in identifying conditions that could potentially be treated with ABP-450, we may experience difficulties in identifying a proper treatment regimen, or we may fail to successfully develop ABP-450 or secure regulatory approval for such conditions.

​

Efforts to identify and pursue additional potential therapeutic uses of ABP-450 require substantial technical, financial and human resources, regardless of whether they are ultimately successful. Because we have limited financial and personnel resources, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with potential target indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success.

​

Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential therapeutic uses of ABP-450 that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

​

Even if we receive regulatory approval for ABP-450, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, limit or prohibit commercial distribution, prevent continued investigation and research and subject us to penalties if we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. Additionally, ABP-450, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

​

For any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our ABP-450, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as ongoing compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials. In addition, manufacturers of biological products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMPs and other applicable regulations and standards. In addition, any regulatory approvals we may receive will require the submission of periodic reports to regulatory authorities and ongoing surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. Such approvals may also contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

​

If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency 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. In addition, failure to comply with FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

​

​

Regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of ABP-450. 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 to 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 be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

​

In addition, given the similarity of ABP-450 to Jeuveau, any adverse developments with respect to Jeuveau, including adverse events or changes in regulatory status, may also directly impact the development, commercialization or regulation of ABP-450, if approved.

​

Even if we receive regulatory approval, coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for ABP-450, which could make it difficult for us to sell the product profitably.

​

Market acceptance and sales of ABP-450, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the product and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations and other private health insurers.

​

Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor.

​

Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. While no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for ABP-450 will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. Therefore, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product or any related treatments. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy and on what tier of its formulary it will be placed. The position on a payor’s list of covered drugs and biological products, or formulary, generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. In addition, because ABP-450 may be required to be physician-administered, separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the administering physician may only be reimbursed for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used.

​

There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors, by any future laws limiting pharmaceutical prices and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of product from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

​

Third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product for which we obtain regulatory approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize ABP-450.

​

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe a continued emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries could continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

​

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third party payors in the United States and other jurisdictions to cap or reduce health care costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products

and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

​

Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our products and may affect the prices we may set.

​

In the United States and other foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include the following:

​

​

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.

​

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 has, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2032, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional action is taken by Congress. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In addition, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price. These laws and any laws enacted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

​

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D continue to penalize price increases that outpace inflation; and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined but, is likely to be significant.

​

We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for ABP-450, if approved, or additional pricing pressures.

​

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing 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. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our products or put pressure on our product pricing.

​

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 or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our products may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

​

ABP-450, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration and expansion.

​

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovation. It also requires, among other things, the ability to effectively discover, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for novel products, as well as the ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products, including communicating the effectiveness, safety and value of products to actual and prospective customers and medical professionals. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of products competitive with those that we are developing.

​

Our primary competitors for ABP-450 in the injectable botulinum toxin pharmaceutical market for therapeutic use are:

​

​

We are also aware of competing botulinum toxins currently being developed or commercialized in the United States, European Union, Asia, South America and other markets. While some of these products may not meet United States regulatory standards, the companies operating in these markets may be able to produce products at a lower cost than United States and European manufacturers. In addition to the injectable botulinum toxin dose forms, we are aware that other companies are developing topical botulinum toxins for therapeutic indications. We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from other pharmaceutical products.

​

As more companies develop new intellectual property in our markets, the possibility of a competitor acquiring patent or other rights that may limit our products or potential products increases, which could lead to litigation. In addition to product development, testing, approval and promotion, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include industry consolidation, product quality and price, product technology, reputation, customer service and access to technical information.

​

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities on our own or through third parties, we will be unable to successfully commercialize ABP-450, if approved, or generate product revenue.

​

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have little experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To successfully commercialize ABP-450, if approved, in the United States and other jurisdictions we may seek to enter, we will need to build out our sales and marketing capabilities, either on our own or with others. The establishment and development of our own commercial team or the establishment of a contract sales force to market ABP-450 will be expensive and time-consuming and may divert significant management focus and resources, potentially delaying any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability, given that we have no experience as a company in commercializing products. We may seek to enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into or maintain such agreements on favorable terms or at all. We can provide no assurance that any future collaborators will provide effective sales forces or marketing and distribution capabilities. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well-funded marketing and sales operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel, and will have to compete with those companies to recruit, hire, train and retain any of our own marketing and sales personnel. We will likely also face competition if we seek third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of ABP-450. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

​

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

​

As of December 31, 2024, we had five employees. If ABP-450 receives regulatory approval, we would expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research, development, regulatory affairs, sales, marketing and distribution. In addition, we also expect to hire additional personnel in order to operate as a public company. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. In addition, we must effectively integrate, develop and motivate a growing number of new employees, and maintain the beneficial aspects of our corporate culture. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our development and strategic objectives or disrupt our operations.

​

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on third parties, including independent organizations, advisors and consultants, and CROs to provide certain services to support and perform our operations. There can be no assurance that the services of these third parties will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality, accuracy or quantity of the services provided, in particular the services provided by our CROs, is compromised for any reason, our clinical studies may be delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain, or may be substantially delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval of ABP-450 or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other suitable outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

​

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, vendors and other agents may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

​

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, vendors and other agents may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates applicable regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to regulatory agencies, manufacturing standards, and federal and state healthcare laws and regulations. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. We could face liability under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and similar state laws. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, referrals, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of individually identifiable information, including, without limitation, information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in significant regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Further, should violations include promotion of unapproved (off-label) uses of one or more of our products, we could face significant regulatory sanctions for unlawful promotion, as well as substantial penalties under the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, and similar state laws. Similar concerns could exist in jurisdictions outside of the United States as well. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Our potential international operations will expose us to risks, and failure to manage these risks may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

​

We expect to have operations both inside and outside the United States if ABP-450 is approved for commercial sale in multiple jurisdictions. International operations are subject to a number of inherent risks, and our future results could be adversely affected by a number of factors if we seek and obtain the necessary approvals, including:

​

​

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of ABP-450.

​

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of ABP-450 and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our products. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

​

​

Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing ABP-450, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of ABP-450; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms.

​

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop ABP-450, conduct our clinical studies and commercialize ABP-450.

​

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management. We believe that our future success is highly dependent upon the contributions of our senior management, particularly Marc Forth, our Chief Executive Officer, as well as other members of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical studies or the commercialization of ABP-450 or any future products we develop.

​

In addition, we could experience difficulties attracting and retaining qualified employees in the future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceuticals field is intense due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information or that their former employers own their research output.

​

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials, and we and our third-party manufacturer and supplier must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

​

Our R&D and manufacturing activities in the future may, and Daewoong’s manufacturing and supplying activities presently do, involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including botulinum toxin type-A, a key component of ABP-450, and other hazardous compounds. We and Daewoong are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at Daewoong’s facilities pending their use and disposal. We and Daewoong cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of Daewoong’s manufacturing processes, our commercialization efforts or our business operations and could cause environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by Daewoong for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, this may not eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent.

​

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

​

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by one or more 5% shareholders over a rolling three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post- change taxable income or income tax liabilities, as applicable, may be limited. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company had federal net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards of $112.1 million and $87.3 million, respectively, which will begin to expire in 2036. The Company had state NOLs of $140.5 million and $116.2 million as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, which will begin to expire in 2034. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company has federal research and development (“R&D”) credit carryforwards of $6.9 million and $6.1 million, respectively, which will begin to expire in 2039. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs to offset federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.

​

Changes in tax laws may impact our future financial position and results of operations.

​

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, or interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us, any of which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. We are currently unable to predict whether such changes will occur and, if so, the ultimate impact on our business. To the extent that such changes have a negative impact on us or our suppliers, including as a result of related uncertainty, these changes may materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

​

Prior to the Business Combination, Priveterra identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. In 2024, AEON identified additional material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. One or more of these material weaknesses could adversely affect our ability to report our results of operations and financial condition accurately and in a timely manner, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and materially and adversely affect our business and operating results.

​

Prior to consummation of the Business Combination, Priveterra management identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting, related to Priveterra’s accounting for complex financial instruments. In 2024, AEON management identified additional material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to its fiscal year 2023, related to the Business Combination and for the valuation of complex financial instruments, and the lack of segregation of duties pertaining to the financial reporting process due to lack of sufficient resources. To respond to the material weaknesses, we have devoted and plan to continue to devote, significant effort and resources to the remediation and improvement of our internal control over financial reporting. We plan to enhance our processes by designing and implementing controls to review the results of valuations and estimates, including the completeness and accuracy of relevant data elements included in the valuation or estimate. We also plan to engage additional qualified

resources and/or hire additional staff to ensure these incremental controls are properly implemented and to ensure proper segregation of duties around the financial reporting process. Management continues to be actively engaged to take steps to remediate the material weaknesses, including enhanced processes to identify and appropriately apply applicable accounting requirements to better evaluate and understand the nuances of the complex accounting standards that apply to our consolidated financial statements, providing enhanced access to accounting literature, research materials and documents, and increased communication among our personnel and third-party professionals with whom we consult regarding complex accounting applications. The elements of our remediation plan can only be accomplished over time, and we can offer no assurance that these initiatives will ultimately have the intended effects.

​

Risks Related to our Reliance on Third Parties

​

We rely on the Daewoong Agreement to provide us exclusive rights to commercialize and distribute ABP-450 in certain territories. Any termination or loss of significant rights, including exclusivity, under the Daewoong Agreement would materially and adversely affect our development or commercialization of ABP-450.

​

Pursuant to the Daewoong Agreement, we have secured an exclusive license from Daewoong, a South Korean pharmaceutical manufacturer, to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale and otherwise commercialize and exploit ABP-450 for therapeutic indications in certain territories including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, Commonwealth of Independent States and South Africa. The Daewoong Agreement imposes on us obligations relating to exclusivity, territorial rights, development, regulatory approval, commercialization, payment, diligence, sublicensing, intellectual property protection and other matters. For example, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval of ABP-450 and obtain from Daewoong all of our product supply requirements for ABP-450. In addition, under the Daewoong Agreement, we are required to submit our commercialization plan to a Joint Steering Committee, or JSC, comprised of an equal number of development and commercial representatives from Daewoong and us, for review and input.

​

Although the Daewoong Agreement provides us with final decision-making power regarding the marketing, promotion, sale and/or distribution of ABP-450, any disagreement among the JSC would be referred to Daewoong’s and our respective senior management for resolution if the JSC is unable to reach a decision within thirty days, which may result in a delay in our ability to implement our commercialization plan or harm our working relationship with Daewoong. Further, under the Daewoong Agreement, we may not purchase, sell or distribute any injectable botulinum toxin that is launched in the covered territories after the effective date of the Daewoong Agreement other than ABP-450 in a covered territory or sell ABP-450 outside a covered territory.

​

The initial term of the Daewoong Agreement will expire on the later of December 20, 2029 or the fifth anniversary of our receipt of approval from the relevant governmental authority necessary to market and sell ABP-450 in any of the aforementioned territories. The Daewoong Agreement will renew for unlimited additional three-year terms after the expiration of the initial term. We or Daewoong may terminate the Daewoong Agreement if the other party breaches any of its duties or obligations and such breach continues without cure for ninety days, or thirty days in the case of a payment default, or, if such breach is not capable of being cured, immediately by delivery of written notice. The Daewoong Agreement will terminate without notice upon our bankruptcy or insolvency or if we assign our business or the Daewoong Agreement in whole or in part for the benefit of creditors. On March 19, 2024, we entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Daewoong Agreement (the “Daewoong Agreement Amendment”) with Daewoong, which amends the Daewoong Agreement to provide that Daewoong may terminate the Daewoong Agreement if, over any six- month period, (a) we cease to commercialize ABP-450 in each of the territories specified in the License Agreement and (b) we cease to advance any clinical studies of ABP-450 in any such territories. The Daewoong Agreement Amendment also provides that, in the event that the License Agreement is terminated for the foregoing reasons, Daewoong will have the right to purchase all Know-How (as defined in the License Agreement) related to ABP-450 for a price of $1.00 (the “Termination Purchase Right”). The Termination Purchase Right will terminate and expire upon Daewoong’s sale of 50% of its common stock, including common stock held by its affiliates and common stock that would be issued upon an Automatic Conversion or Optional Conversion of the Convertible Notes (as defined in the Convertible Notes).

​

We will be the sole owner of any marketing authorization we pursue related to therapeutic indications of ABP-450 in a covered territory. This will include ownership of any BLA that we may submit to the FDA, MAA that we may submit to the EMA, NDS that we may submit to Health Canada, and any other approvals that we may receive in a covered territory. However, if we do not renew the Daewoong Agreement following any initial or renewal term, or if Daewoong terminates the Daewoong Agreement due to a breach by us, we are obligated to transfer our rights in such marketing authorizations to Daewoong.

​

If we breach any material obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages to Daewoong and Daewoong may have the right to terminate our license. Any termination or loss of rights under the Daewoong Agreement would materially and adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize ABP-450, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. If we were to lose our rights under the Daewoong Agreement, we believe it would be difficult or impossible for us to find an alternative supplier of a botulinum toxin type-A complex. In addition, to the extent the alternative supplier has not secured regulatory approvals in a jurisdiction, we would have to expend significant resources, including performing additional clinical studies, to obtain regulatory approvals that may never be obtained or require several years to obtain, which could significantly delay commercialization. We may be unable to raise additional capital to fund our operations during this extended time on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we were to commercialize ABP-450 and later experience delays as a result of a dispute with Daewoong, the demand for ABP-450 could be materially and adversely affected.

​

We currently rely solely on Daewoong to manufacture ABP-450, and as such, any production or other problems with Daewoong could adversely affect us. The manufacture of biologics is complex and Daewoong may encounter difficulties in production that may impact our ability to provide supply of ABP-450 for clinical studies, our ability to obtain regulatory approval, or our ability to obtain commercial supply of our products, which, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

​

We have no experience in biologic manufacturing and do not own or operate, and we do not expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. We depend solely upon Daewoong to manufacture ABP-450. Any failure or refusal by Daewoong to supply ABP-450 could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts. The Daewoong Agreement also provides for a fixed price related to the supply of ABP-450 for ten years or for five years after the receipt of regulatory approvals, and if a change in price were to occur, it could impair our ability to obtain necessary quantities of ABP-450. Although alternative sources of supply may exist, the number of third-party suppliers with the necessary manufacturing and regulatory expertise and facilities is limited, and it could be expensive and take a significant amount of time to arrange for alternative suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. New suppliers of any product candidate would be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements and would need to have sufficient rights under applicable intellectual property laws to the method of manufacturing the product candidate. Obtaining the necessary FDA approvals or other qualifications under applicable regulatory requirements and ensuring non- infringement of third-party intellectual property rights could result in a significant interruption of supply and could require the new manufacturer to bear significant additional costs which may be passed on to us. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new contract manufacturing organization or manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical suppliers which could require conducting additional clinical studies.

​

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical studies or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with cGMP, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for ABP-450, there is no assurance that Daewoong will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential commercial launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If Daewoong is unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical studies, including preclinical studies, or for commercialization, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

​

Our reliance on Daewoong entails additional risks, including reliance on Daewoong for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the Daewoong Agreement by Daewoong, and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the Daewoong Agreement at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. Our failure, or the failure of Daewoong, to comply with applicable regulations, such as cGMP, which includes, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation, could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of the product candidate or drugs, import alerts or detentions preventing import of product into the United States or other territories, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of ABP-450. Our dependence on Daewoong also subjects us to all of the risks related to Daewoong’s business, which are all generally beyond our control. Daewoong’s ability to perform its obligations under the Daewoong Agreement is dependent on its operational and financial health, which could be negatively impacted by several factors, including changes in the economic, political and legislative conditions in South Korea and the broader region in general and the ability of Daewoong to continue to successfully attract customers and compete in its market. Daewoong’s lack of familiarity with,

or inability to effectively operate, the facility and produce products of consistent quality, may harm our ability to compete in our market.

​

In addition, we are ultimately responsible for distribution of products under any authorization or approval we hold to investigate or market ABP-450. We do not own a manufacturing facility and we have never supervised manufacturing operations, but we have regulatory obligations to review batch records and release of the investigational product for our clinical studies. Further, we will have similar regulatory obligations if the product is marketed and could be held responsible for any distribution of adulterated or misbranded ABP-450, even if caused by Daewoong’s noncompliance. If Daewoong’s facility were to be damaged, destroyed or otherwise unable to operate or comply with regulatory requirements, whether due to earthquakes, fire, floods, hurricanes, storms, tornadoes, other natural disasters, employee malfeasance, terrorist acts, political unrest, power outages or otherwise, or if operations at the facility were disrupted for any other reason, such an event could negatively affect our ongoing preclinical studies and clinical studies and, if ABP-450 is approved, jeopardize Daewoong’s ability to manufacture ABP-450 as promptly as we or our customers expect or possibly at all. If an event occurred that prevented Daewoong from using all or a significant portion of its manufacturing facility due to damaged critical infrastructure, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for Daewoong to supply enough ABP- 450 to continue our business for a substantial period of time.

​

A material breach by us of the terms of our license and settlement agreement with Medytox, Inc. could have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

In May 2021, Medytox, Inc., or Medytox, brought a case against Old AEON in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, or the Medytox Litigation, alleging, among other things, that Daewoong stole Medytox’s botulinum toxin bacterial strain, or the BTX strain, and misappropriated certain trade secrets of Medytox, including the process used to manufacture ABP-450 using the BTX strain, and that our and Daewoong’s activities conducted in the United States gave rise to liability for misappropriation of trade secrets. Medytox sought, among other things, (i) actual, consequential and punitive damages, (ii) a reasonable royalty, as appropriate, (iii) disgorgement of any proceeds or profits, (iv) injunctive relief prohibiting us from using Medytox’s trade secrets to manufacture, offer to sell, or sell therapeutic BTX products, including ABP-450, and (v) attorneys’ fees and costs.

​

The Medytox Litigation was another step in an ongoing dispute involving Medytox and Allergan, on the one side, and Evolus, Daewoong and us on the other side. In June 2017, Medytox brought a civil lawsuit of a similar nature against Evolus, Daewoong and Old AEON in the Superior Court of the State of California, which we refer to as the Superior Court Litigation, and a separate lawsuit in October 2017 against Daewoong in South Korea, which we refer to as the Korea Litigation. The lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California alleged claims substantially similar to the Medytox Litigation and was subsequently stayed on grounds of forum non conveniens, because the underlying facts that gave rise to the complaint occurred in South Korea, among other reasons. We are not a party to the Korea Litigation. In April 2018, the Superior Court of the State of California dismissed Medytox’s suit against Daewoong without prejudice on the basis that Medytox had brought a substantially similar proceeding against Daewoong in South Korea, and continued a stay of the case as to us and Evolus. In February 2021, the Superior Court of the State of California dismissed Medytox’s suit against Old AEON without prejudice, following Medytox’s filing of a notice of settlement of the case based on a settlement it entered with Evolus.

​

Additionally, in January 2019, Allergan and Medytox filed a complaint against Daewoong and Evolus with the United States International Trade Commission, or the United States ITC, alleging that the BTX strain used in Evolus’ Jeuveau product is manufactured based on misappropriated trade secrets of Medytox and therefore its importation is an unfair act. The Administrative Law Judge issued a final determination in December 2020. The final determination concluded that a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 had occurred, and the United States ITC issued a limited exclusion order forbidding entry of Jeuveau into the United States for 21 months and a cease and desist order prohibiting Daewoong and Evolus from engaging in the importations, sale for importation, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, the sale after the importation of, or other transfers of Jeuveau within the United States for 21 months. The 21-month ban was stayed as a result of a settlement agreement between Evolus and Medytox in February 2021.

​

Effective June 21, 2021, Old AEON entered into a settlement and license agreement with Medytox, or the Medytox Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, Medytox agreed (a) to dismiss all claims against us in the Medytox Litigation, (b) to pursue dismissal of the appeals related to the December 2020 final determination of the United States ITC and agreed that as a result of such dismissal the final determination would be vacated, (c) to file appropriate documents in the Korea Litigation and related actions in support of the terms of the settlement, and (d) not to revive or otherwise pursue the Superior Court Litigation with respect to

us. In addition, Medytox granted us a non-exclusive, royalty bearing license to Medytox’s botulinum toxin strain and specific trade secrets alleged to have been misappropriated in the litigation to commercialize and manufacture specific botulinum neurotoxin products including ABP-450 worldwide, with the exception of South Korea. In exchange for the license, we issued Medytox 26,680,511 shares of Old AEON common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, and agreed to pay Medytox single-digit royalties on the net sales of licensed products for 15 years following our first $1.0 million in commercial sales of neurotoxin products.

​

Medytox can terminate the Medytox Settlement Agreement if we materially breach any material provision of the agreement, either immediately upon written notice if the breach is incurable or after 60 days if capable of remedy. Additionally, Medytox may terminate the Medytox Settlement Agreement with 15 days of written notice if we or our affiliates or sublicensees challenge the validity, enforceability, scope, or protected status of Medytox’s botulinum strain and specific trade secrets alleged to have been misappropriated in the litigation. If the Medytox Settlement Agreement were terminated, Medytox would be able to revive the Medytox Litigation and other claims against us, and may seek an injunction or other ruling against us in the Korea Litigation, any one of which could result in us losing access to ABP-450 and the manufacturing process and require us to negotiate a new license with Medytox for continued access to ABP-450. We may not be able to successfully negotiate such license on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we are unable to license ABP-450, we may not be able to find a replacement product candidate on a timeline favorable to us, if at all, without expending significant resources and being required to seek additional regulatory approvals, which would be uncertain, time consuming and costly.

​

We rely, and will continue to rely, on third parties, CROs and consultants to conduct all of our preclinical studies and clinical studies. If these third parties or consultants do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for ABP-450.

​

We do not currently have the ability to independently conduct any preclinical studies or clinical studies. We rely, and will continue to rely, on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories, collaborative partners and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct preclinical studies and clinical studies on ABP-450. The third parties with whom we currently or may in the future contract for execution of any of our preclinical studies and clinical studies play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. However, these third parties are not our employees, and except for contractual duties and obligations, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to any of our current or future programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical studies, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical studies is conducted in accordance with the investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, the FDA and other similar regulatory authorities require us to observe both good laboratory practices, or GLP, and animal welfare requirements for preclinical studies, and to comply with GCPs for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical studies to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the study subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical studies. Our reliance on CROs and other third parties does not relieve us of these regulatory and legal responsibilities. Regulatory authorities enforce GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs or trial sites fail to comply with applicable GLP, GCP or other requirements, the 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, if ever. Furthermore, our clinical trials must be conducted with materials manufactured in accordance with cGMP regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

​

In addition, the execution of preclinical studies and clinical studies, and the subsequent compilation and analysis of the data produced, requires coordination among various parties. In order for these functions to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that these parties communicate and coordinate with one another. Moreover, these third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. If the third parties or consultants conducting our clinical studies do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to GLPs, or our clinical study protocols or GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to conduct additional clinical studies or enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies and clinical studies may be extended, delayed or terminated or may need to be repeated. Further, any noncompliance that results in data integrity issues could put any regulatory approval we receive at risk of withdrawal, and could subject us to regulatory sanctions due to failure to adequately oversee the third parties we rely upon. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval for and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize ABP-450.

​

Public health outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) may materially and adversely affect our business and operations.

​

The COVID-19 pandemic previously adversely affected, and the COVID-19 pandemic or other actual or threatened public health outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics may in the future adversely affect, among other things, our research and development efforts, clinical trial operations, manufacturing and supply chain operations, administrative personnel, third-party service providers, and business partners.

​

While the COVID-19 pandemic did not materially adversely affect our business operations during the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, economic and health conditions in the United States and across most of the globe continue to change rapidly and may materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, a continuing widespread pandemic could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 or a future public health outbreak could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar public health outbreak is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

​

We may use third-party collaborators to help us develop, validate or commercialize any new products, and our ability to commercialize such products could be impaired or delayed if these collaborations are unsuccessful.

​

We may license or selectively pursue strategic collaborations for the development, validation and commercialization of ABP-450. In any third-party collaboration, we would be dependent upon the success of the collaborators in performing their responsibilities and their continued cooperation, and we would have limited control over the amount and timing of resources and effort that our collaborators would dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our collaborators may not cooperate with us or perform their obligations under our agreements with them at all or as expected. Our collaborators may choose to pursue alternative technologies in preference to those being developed in collaboration with us. The development, validation and commercialization of our current and future product candidates may be delayed if collaborators fail to conduct their responsibilities in a timely manner or in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements or if they breach or terminate their collaboration agreements with us. Our collaborators could also independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates, fail to properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, exposing us to litigation. Disputes with our collaborators could also impair our reputation or result in development and commercialization delays, decreased revenues and could cause litigation expenses.

​

In addition, we may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical studies, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for ABP-450 or our future product candidates, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering ABP-450 or our future product candidates to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document.

​

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of ABP-450 or our future product candidates, reduce or delay development programs, delay potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop and commercialize ABP-450 or our future product candidates or bring them to market and generate revenue.

​

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

​

If we or any of our current or future licensors, including Daewoong, are unable to maintain, obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to ABP-450 and any future product candidates we may develop, or if the scope of any protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

​

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to seek, obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our technologies. We and Daewoong currently rely upon a combination of trademarks, trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements and proprietary know- how. Additionally, Daewoong has obtained a United States patent related to its proprietary botulinum toxin manufacturing process. We also intend to protect our proprietary technology and methods by, among other things, filing for and obtaining United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, methods of use, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. However, due to existing patent eligibility laws, we do not expect to obtain patent protection for the composition of matter for botulinum toxin, as it is produced by Clostridium botulinum, a gram-positive, rod-shaped, anaerobic, spore-forming, motile bacterium with the ability to produce the botulinum toxin. Although we only own one issued patent covering our migraine injection paradigm (U.S. Patent No. 11,826,405), we do not own any other issued patents, but we have filed certain provisional and non-provisional patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, related to other novel and proprietary methods of utilizing ABP-450 for therapeutic purposes. These patent applications may fail to result in any issued patents with claims that cover ABP-450, in the United States or in other foreign countries, and the patents, if issued, may be declared invalid or unenforceable.

​

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent applications and patents due to the subject matter claimed in such patent applications and patents being in disclosures in the public domain. In addition, it is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our R&D output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our R&D output, such as our employees and third-party consultants, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent any third party from using any of our technology that is in the public domain to compete with ABP-450 and any future product candidates.

​

Other parties have developed technologies that may be related to or competitive to our own technologies and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have obtained or may obtain patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our patent applications or any future issued patents. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to ABP-450 and any future product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether the inventors of our pending patent applications were the first to make the inventions claimed in those patent applications, or that they were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. If a third party can establish that we were not the first to make or the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, our patent applications may not issue and any patents, if issued, may be challenged and invalidated or rendered unenforceable.

​

Even in the event our non-provisional patent applications are granted, or if we in-license issued patent rights from third parties, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and any such patents may be challenged in courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad and later declared invalid or unenforceable. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO challenging the validity of one or more claims of any such patents. A third party may also claim that any such patents are invalid or unenforceable in a litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. An adverse result in any legal proceeding could put any such patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could allow third parties to commercialize our products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, we may become involved in derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings and other similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings) challenging the validity, priority or other features of patentability of any such patent rights. Challenges to our patent rights may result in loss of patent rights, exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the scope and duration of the patent protection of ABP-450 or future product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our

scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of botulinum toxins, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after they are commercialized. As a result, our patent applications, even if issued, may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to ABP-450 or future product candidates, including biosimilar versions of such products.

​

Even if they are unchallenged, our pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. If the patent protection provided by our patent applications, if issued, is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates could be negatively affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Under the Daewoong Agreement, we license the trademark for Nabota associated with ABP-450 from Daewoong; however, we may ultimately pursue alternative trademarks and branding for ABP-450. Our or Daewoong’s trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information and those of our future licensors could be disclosed or competitors could otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we or any of our current or future licensors may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our or their intellectual property both in the United States and internationally. If we or any of our current or future licensors are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to ABP-450 to third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business.

​

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, trademarks, confidentiality agreements and proprietary know-how, we may in the future rely upon in-licensed or acquired patents or proprietary technology for the development of ABP-450. We may not be able to in-license third party patents necessary to commercialize ABP-450 on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could materially harm our business. Even if we are able to in-license any such necessary intellectual property, it could be on nonexclusive terms, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have licensed, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign ABP-450 or future product candidates, or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis, and we may have to abandon development of ABP-450 or future product candidates which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Additionally, the strength of any patents that issue from our non-provisional patent applications or that we may in-license from third parties in the technology and healthcare fields involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of any patent rights in such fields can be uncertain. Our pending patent applications and any patent applications that we may in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover ABP-450, in the United States or in other foreign countries, and the issued patents that we may in-license may be declared invalid or unenforceable.

​

We are reliant on the ability of Daewoong, as the licensor of our only product candidate, to maintain its intellectual property and protect its intellectual property against misappropriation, infringement or other violation. We may not have primary control over Daewoong’s or our future licensors’ patent prosecution activities. Furthermore, we may not be allowed to comment on prosecution

strategies, and patent applications currently being prosecuted may be abandoned by the patent owner without our knowledge or consent.

​

With respect to patents that are issued to our licensors, or patents that may issue on patent applications, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. As a licensee, we are reliant on Daewoong and our future licensors to defend any third-party claims. Our licensors may not defend or prosecute such actions as vigorously or in the manner that we would have if entitled to do so, and we may be impacted by any judgment or settlement resulting from such actions. Also, a third party may challenge the validity of our in-licensing transactions. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, any of our future in-licensed patents and patent applications may not adequately protect the licensors or our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around their or our claims.

​

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or violation, or challenges related to the invalidity or unenforceability of any issued patents we may obtain or in-license may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations.

​

Our commercial success depends in part on our and any of our future collaborators avoiding infringement, misappropriation or other violation of the intellectual property and related proprietary rights of third parties. Competitors and other entities that possess intellectual property rights related to the use of botulinum toxins in the fields of neurology and gastroenterology have developed large portfolios of patents and patent applications in fields relating to our business. In particular, there are patents held by third parties that relate to the treatment with botulinum toxin-based products. There may also be patent applications that have been filed but not published that, when issued as patents, could be asserted against us. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the technology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the USPTO. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we plan to develop ABP-450. As the technology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidate may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties, regardless of their merit.

​

There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of ABP-450. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing and can be revised before issuance, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that ABP-450 or any future product candidates may infringe. It is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to ABP-450 and future product candidates because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology or incorrectly conclude their invalidity or unenforceability. In addition, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover ABP-450 or future product candidates and third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Even if we believe claims brought against us are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such United States patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such United States patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such United States patent or find that ABP-450 or future product candidates did not infringe any such claims. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of ABP-450, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize ABP-450 unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our methods of use, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize ABP-450 unless we obtain a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

​