COLL Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc

Table of Contents

04

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

​

​

(781) 713-3699

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

​

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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ⌧

​

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 checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ⌧

​

As of June 30, 2019, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $416.0 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on The NASDAQ Global Select Market on June 30, 2019 of $13.15 per share. Shares of the registrant’s common stock held by each officer and director and each person known to the registrant to own 10% or more of the outstanding common stock of the registrant have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not a determination for other purposes.

​

As of January 31, 2020, there were 34,050,862 shares of the registrant's common stock, par value, $0.001 per share, outstanding.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

​

Portions of the registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the "Proxy Statement"), to be filed within 120 days of the registrant's year ended December 31, 2019, are incorporated by reference in Part II and Part III of this Report on Form 10-K. Except with respect to information specifically incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, the Proxy Statement is not deemed to be filed as part of this Form 10-K.

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements

​

Statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not statements of historical or current facts, such as those under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements discuss our current expectations and projections relating to our financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business. These statements may be preceded by, followed by or include the words “aim,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “outlook,” “plan,” “potential,” “project,” “projection,” “seek,” “may,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “can,” “can have,” “likely,” the negatives thereof and other words and terms of similar meaning.

​

Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions; they are not guarantees of performance. You should not place undue reliance on these statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. Although we believe that our assumptions made in connection with the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot assure you that the assumptions and expectations will prove to be correct.

​

You should understand that the following important factors could affect our future results and could cause those results or other outcomes to differ materially from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements:

​

​

In light of these risks and uncertainties, expected results or other anticipated events or circumstances discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (including the exhibits hereto) might not occur. We undertake no obligation, and specifically decline any obligation, to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, even if experience or future developments make it clear that projected results expressed or implied in such statements will not be realized, except as may be required by law.

​

These and other risks are described under the heading “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Those factors and the other risk factors described therein are not necessarily all of the important factors that could cause actual results or developments to differ materially from those expressed in any of our forward-looking statements. Other unknown or unpredictable factors also could harm our results. Consequently, there can be no assurance that actual results or developments anticipated by us will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on, us. Given these uncertainties, prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

In 2019, there were approximately 170 million prescriptions for opioids written in the United States, representing a 9% decline from 2018 levels and including approximately 3.7 million prescriptions for branded extended-release opioids, approximately 14.2 million prescriptions for generic extended-release opioids, and greater than 152 million prescriptions for immediate-release opioids.

​

Increasingly, practitioners and regulators are focusing on multidisciplinary, multimodal approaches to pain management, including exercise, physical and psychotherapy, and opioid and non-opioid medications. Recognizing the role that opioid therapy continues to play in effective management of moderate to severe pain in appropriate patients, these groups are advocating for best practices that support appropriate opioid prescribing practices that may help mitigate the risk of addiction and other adverse events to patients.

​

Prescription Opioid Abuse is an Epidemic in the United States

Prescription opioids of all kinds, including both immediate-release and extended-release formulations, are subject to manipulation, misuse, and abuse. Abuse-deterrent technologies, including the DETERx platform that is incorporated in Xtampza ER, have emerged to reduce the risk of abuse of prescription opioids, but these technologies do not eliminate the possibility of misuse and abuse.

​

Extended-release opioids, with their large payload of active pharmaceutical ingredient, may be especially attractive to potential abusers, who tamper with these formulations to overcome the extended-release mechanism and achieve the euphoria that results from rapid increases in the blood concentration of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, a potentially fatal activity known as dose dumping.

​

The CDC described abuse of prescription drugs in the United States as a vast and deadly epidemic. According to a 2019 CDC report, there were a record-high 70,237 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2017, representing a rate of 21.7 per 100,000 persons. Prescription and/or illicit opioids were involved in 47,600, or 67.8%, of these drug overdose deaths, with over 17,000 of these fatalities attributed to prescription opioids alone. According to the CDC, the most recent data suggest that opioid-involved overdose deaths declined from 2017 to 2018, in contrast to the sharp increases during 2014 to 2017.

​

The opioid epidemic has, in addition to its death toll, imposed significant burdens on the U.S. healthcare system. In 2016, an estimated 91,840 hospitalizations occurred for opioid-related poisonings in the U.S. In addition, 2016 saw an estimated 197,970 emergency department visits for opioid-related poisonings in the U.S. A nonprofit group that studies the health economy recently estimated that the opioid epidemic has cost the U.S. more than a trillion dollars since 2001, based on CDC mortality data through June of 2017. The greatest financial cost of the epidemic, according to the report, is in lost earnings and productivity losses to employers.

​

Despite the reduction in opioid prescriptions and the heightened awareness of the risks associated with opioid use, abuse of prescription opioids, including extended-release formulations, continues to be a major public health issue. In 2017, an estimated 11.4 million, or 4.2% of persons aged 12 and older, reported opioid misuse in the prior year. In response to issues surrounding abuse of prescription opioids, pharmaceutical companies have developed novel, abuse-deterrent formulation strategies. Abuse-deterrent formulations target the known or expected routes of abuse, such as crushing in order to snort or dissolving in order to inject, for the specific opioid drug substance. The FDA has encouraged the development of prescription opioids with abuse-deterrent formulations to help combat the opioid crisis and expanding access to abuse deterrent formulations is part of the FDA’s comprehensive Opioids Action Plan.

​

Legislative and Regulatory Actions

​

In response to widespread prescription opioid abuse, the U.S. government and a number of state legislatures have enacted legislation and regulations intended to fight the opioid epidemic. The number and scope of legislative and regulatory actions, particularly in the last three years, emphasize the severity of the opioid epidemic and its impact on our society. The FDA has stated that addressing prescription drug abuse is a priority and has reaffirmed that the development of abuse-deterrent opioids is a key part of that strategy.

​

Table of Contents

Recent actions to address the opioid abuse epidemic include:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The Collegium Portfolio

​

Our mission is to be the leader in responsible pain management. We have leveraged our research and development efforts as well as licensing relationships with third parties, to develop a portfolio of meaningfully differentiated products for use in the treatment of moderate to severe pain.
​

Xtampza ER

In April 2016, the FDA approved our NDA for Xtampza ER (extended-release oxycodone) for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options

Table of Contents

are inadequate. The approved labeling for Xtampza ER includes human abuse potential studies, as well as data supporting the administration of the product as a sprinkle or administered through feeding tubes. In June 2016, we launched Xtampza ER in the United States. Xtampza ER is formulated using our novel abuse-deterrent technology platform, DETERx, which provides extended-release delivery, while also providing barriers to common methods of abuse and misuse (e.g., crushing, chewing, heating and injecting). This technology combines an active opioid ingredient with a fatty acid and waxes to form microspheres that are filled into a capsule – these wax-based microspheres are designed to resist particle size reduction and dose dumping when subjected to physical and chemical manipulation. Xtampza ER’s label indicates a dosing regimen of one capsule every 12 hours and it must be taken with food.

​

Xtampza ER, OxyContin from Purdue, and the authorized generic version of OxyContin (which is identical to the branded version) are the only extended-release oxycodone products marketed in the United States as of January 2020. In 2019, the extended-release oxycodone (OER) market generated approximately $1.5 billion in gross U.S. sales and there were approximately 2.8 million prescriptions written. OxyContin is the largest selling extended-release oxycodone (and largest-selling branded extended-release opioid) in the United States by dollars and prescription volume, with approximately $1.2 billion in U.S. sales and approximately 2.1 million prescriptions written in 2019. Relative to 2018, dollars generated by sales for OxyContin and its authorized generic forms written in the United States in 2019 declined 19%, with a 23% decline prescription volume. In 2019, there were approximately 466,000 prescriptions of Xtampza ER written.

​

Xtampza ER and OxyContin (along with its authorized generic) feature the same active pharmaceutical ingredient and feature abuse-deterrent technologies – though the abuse deterrent technologies are designed differently. In November 2017, we announced FDA approval of a Supplemental New Drug Application (“sNDA”) for Xtampza ER to include comparative oral pharmacokinetic data from a clinical study evaluating the effect of physical manipulation by crushing Xtampza ER compared with OxyContin and a control (oxycodone hydrochloride immediate-release). In the study, Xtampza ER maintained its extended-release pharmacokinetic profile when crushed, while OxyContin showed a rapid release of oxycodone when crushed with common household tools; crushed OxyContin was bioequivalent to crushed oxycodone IR. The sNDA also added results from an oral human abuse potential study and an oral abuse deterrent claim to the label, making Xtampza ER the only single-agent extended-release oxycodone with oral, intranasal, and intravenous abuse-deterrent labeling.

​

We believe Xtampza ER is well-positioned to capture a significant share of extended-release oxycodone market.

​

Nucynta ER and Nucynta IR

​

In December 2017, we entered into the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, pursuant to which Assertio agreed to grant us a sublicense of certain of its intellectual property related to the Nucynta Products for commercialization of such products in the United States. On January 9, 2018, we amended the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement and consummated the transactions contemplated thereby. On February 13, 2020, we closed the Nucynta Acquisition.

​

Upon the closing of the Nucynta Acquisition and the termination of the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement (except for certain sections that survive in accordance with the Nucynta Purchase Agreement), we assumed all commercialization responsibilities, including sales and marketing, for the Nucynta Products. We began shipping and recognizing product sales on the Nucynta Products on January 9, 2018 and we began commercial promotion of the Nucynta Products in February 2018. The Nucynta Commercialization Agreement initially required us to pay guaranteed minimum royalty of $135.0 million per year through December 2021, as well as a variable royalty based on annual net sales over $233.0 million. On November 8, 2018, we amended certain terms of the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, which eliminated the $135.0 million guaranteed minimum annual royalties and adjusted the royalty structure such that beginning on January 1, 2019, we were obligated to make royalty payments to Assertio conditional upon net sales.

​

Nucynta ER is an extended-release formulation of tapentadol that is indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long term opioid treatment, and for which alternate treatment options are inadequate. Nucynta ER is also the only extended-release opioid approved by the FDA for management of the neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Nucynta IR is an immediate-release formulation of tapentadol that is indicated for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate in adults. Nucynta ER and Nucynta IR are the only tapentadol-based products marketed in the US and the drug substance is patent-protected.

Table of Contents

​

Nucynta ER’s label includes data from separate clinical trials that demonstrate its efficacy in improving pain intensity for patients suffering from chronic low back pain and neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Nucynta IR’s label includes data from a clinical trial that demonstrates its efficacy in improving pain intensity for post-surgical acute pain.

​

Manufacturing of Our Products

​

Overview

​

Xtampza ER is manufactured using a proprietary process. This process is reproducible, scalable and cost-efficient, and we believe that the microsphere formulation — and the related manufacturing process — is unique in the extended-release opioid market. To date, we have produced Xtampza ER at a contract manufacturing organization, Patheon, a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. Our microsphere production is currently conducted in an area of the manufacturing plant that is shared with other clients. We are in the process of building out a dedicated manufacturing suite within the same Patheon site. Patheon has an established record of manufacturing products approved in the United States, including products containing controlled substances. We own all of the intellectual property, including know-how and specialized manufacturing equipment, necessary to be able to replicate the manufacturing equipment currently located at Patheon’s facility at an alternative location (and with an alternative vendor) if necessary.

​

Pursuant to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, Assertio was historically responsible for manufacturing and delivering to us the Nucynta Products for commercialization in the United States. As part of our partnership with Assertio, we participated in a Joint Manufacturing Steering Committee with our counterparts at Assertio, through which we take part in decisions regarding the commercial manufacturing of the Nucynta Products. Effective upon the closing of the Nucynta Acquisition, we assumed responsibility for manufacturing the Nucynta Products for commercialization in the United States. Nucynta ER is produced at a Janssen facility in Puerto Rico pursuant to a supply agreement that we assumed from Assertio in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition. At the time of closing of the Nucynta Acquisition, Assertio had initiated a technology transfer to enable manufacturing of Nucynta ER at Patheon; we have assumed responsibility for completing such technology transfer in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition. Nucynta is produced at a contract manufacturing organization, Cambrex, pursuant to a manufacturing and supply agreement that we assumed from Assertio in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition.

​

Drug Substances

​

The active pharmaceutical ingredient to formulate Xtampza ER is oxycodone base, which presents as myristate salt in the Xtampza ER formulation. We currently procure this active pharmaceutical ingredient pursuant to a supply agreement with a single U.S.-based manufacturer. We are aware of other suppliers who we would expect to be able to satisfy our commercial orders.

​

The active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the Nucynta Products is tapentadol, which is supplied by a single U.S.-based manufacturer.

​

Oxycodone base and tapentadol are classified as narcotic controlled substances under U.S. federal law. Accordingly, Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products are classified by the DEA as Schedule II controlled substances, meaning that they have a high potential for abuse and dependence among drugs that are recognized as having an accepted medical use. Consequently, the manufacturing, shipping, dispensing and storing of our products are subject to a high degree of regulation, as described in more detail under the caption “— Governmental Regulation — DEA and Opioid Regulation.”

​

Marketing and Commercialization

​

We commercialize Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products in the United States with a dedicated field sales force, consisting of approximately 150 sales representatives and managers, to call on the approximately 11,000 health care professionals who write approximately 65% of the branded extended-release opioid prescriptions in the United States, with a primary focus on pain specialists. In addition, we employ medical science liaisons to respond to clinician inquiries about Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products. We also employ a market-access team to support our formulary approval and payor contracting.

​

Table of Contents

We have developed positioning and messaging campaigns, a publication strategy, initiatives with payor organizations, and distribution and national accounts strategies. Our marketing strategy focuses on increasing awareness of the differentiated features of Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products.

​

We primarily sell our products to wholesalers, retail drug store chains, supermarket chains, mass merchandisers, distributors, mail order accounts, hospitals and government agencies. Our wholesalers and distributors purchase products

from us and, in turn, supply products to retail drug store chains, independent pharmacies and managed health care organizations. Customers in the managed health care market include health maintenance organizations, nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, pharmacy benefit management companies and mail order customers. Three of our customers comprised 10% or more of our revenue during the year ended December 31, 2019. These customers comprised 34%, 31% and 30% of revenue, respectively.

​

Intellectual Property

​

The protection of patents, designs, trademarks and other proprietary rights that we own or license is critical to our success and competitive position. Xtampza ER is protected by seventeen issued patents in the United States (which cover both the abuse-deterrent technology and methods of using it to treat patients), one granted and two pending applications in the European Patent Office, two issued patents in Canada, and one issued patent in each of Japan and Australia. Finally, we have six patent applications pending in the United States, one pending patent application in each of Canada and Japan, and one pending PCT application. Our issued U.S. patents are projected to expire in 2023, 2025, 2030, and 2036 and our pending patent applications in the United States, if issued, would be projected to expire in 2023, 2030, and 2036. In addition, we use a unique and proprietary process to manufacture our products that requires significant know how, which we currently protect as trade secrets.

​

We have concluded that some of our technology is best protected as proprietary know-how, rather than through obtaining patents. Except for licenses from Grünenthal GmbH to commercialize the Nucynta Products in the United States and its territories, our technology and products are not in-licensed from any third party, and we own all of the rights to Xtampza ER. We believe we have freedom to operate in the United States and other countries, but there can be no assurance that other companies, known and unknown, will not attempt to assert their intellectual property against us.

​

We also rely on trademarks and trade designs to develop and maintain our competitive position. We have received trademark registration for Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., DETERx, and Xtampza ER in the United States, and acquired trademarks associated with the Nucynta Products in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition.

​

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how that is not patentable, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we generally require our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and, in some cases, requiring disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. Additionally, these confidentiality agreements require that our employees, consultants and advisors do not bring to us, or use without proper authorization, any third party’s proprietary technology.

​

Competition

​

Our industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face competition and potential competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. Most of the existing and potential competitors have significantly more financial and other resources than we do.

​

Xtampza ER

​

Currently, the only extended-release opioid drugs on the market that have an abuse-deterrent product label, in addition to Xtampza ER, are OxyContin and Hysingla®, both from Purdue, and MorphaBond ER from Daiichi Sankyo. Hysingla is a once a day hydrocodone product. MorphaBond ER is a twice daily morphine product formulated with a hard tablet and gelling polymers.

​

Table of Contents

In addition, there are two other extended-release opioid drugs with abuse deterrent product labeling that are not currently marketed: Arymo from Zyla and Embeda from Pfizer. Other companies have products indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe, around-the-clock, long-term pain for which alternative treatments are not available, but these products do not have abuse-deterrent claims in their labels, including Pernix and Mallinckrodt, as well as several generic companies.

​

We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the commercial success of Xtampza ER include the degree of abuse deterrence, bioavailability, therapeutic efficacy, and convenience of dosing and distribution, as well as their safety, cost and tolerability profiles. Xtampza ER may also face competition from commercially available generic and branded extended-release and long-acting opioid drugs other than oxycodone, including fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxymorphone and methadone, as well as opioids that are currently in clinical development, including a generic version of Xtampza ER for which Teva recently submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA and which is the subject of patent infringement litigation filed by us in February 2018.

​

Xtampza ER competes against all extended-release opioids, including Purdue’s OxyContin and its authorized generics. Although no generic oxycodone extended-release products are currently commercially available, it is possible that generic forms of OxyContin could become available, in which case Xtampza ER would compete with any such generic oxycodone extended-release products.

​

The Nucynta Products

​

Nucynta ER competes against other long-acting opioid medications, including: OxyContin; Butrans; Belbuca; and Embeda.

​

Nucynta IR competes primarily against short-acting opioids used for the management of acute pain in adults severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. There are numerous such medicines, including: generic hydrocodone acetaminophen; generic oxycodone; generic oxycodone acetaminophen; and generic tramadol.

​

Government Regulation

​

FDA Approval Process

​

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, withdrawal of the product from the market, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution. Failure to meet FDA requirements for approval would also result in a medication not being approved for marketing.

​

The process of developing a pharmaceutical product and obtaining FDA approval to market the medication in the United States typically involves:

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease.

​

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, stability and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLPs. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations, including GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights, safety and wellbeing of subjects and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; and (ii) under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and any effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. subjects and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

​

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined.

​

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. Pursuant to agreements reached during reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), the FDA has a goal of acting on most original NDAs within six months or ten months of the application submission or filing date (the FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission before accepting them for filing), depending on the nature of the drug. The FDA has a number of programs intended to help expedite testing, review, and approval of drug candidates that meet the applicable eligibility criteria. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present

Table of Contents

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 and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

​

If the FDA’s evaluations of the NDA and of the sponsor’s manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will issue an approval letter, and the sponsor may begin marketing the drug for the approved indications, subject to any post-approval requirements, described further below. If the FDA determines it cannot approve the NDA in its current form, it will issue a complete response letter indicating that the application will not be approved in its current form. The complete response letter usually describes the specific deficiencies that the FDA identified in the application and may require additional clinical or other data or impose other conditions that must be met in order to obtain approval of the NDA. Addressing the deficiencies noted by the FDA could be impractical, and it is possible that the sponsor could withdraw its application or approval may not be obtained or may be costly and may result in significant delays prior to approval.

​

Where a sponsor wishes to expand the originally approved prescribing information, such as by adding a new indication, it must submit and obtain approval of an sNDA. Changes to an indication generally require additional clinical studies, which can be time-consuming and require the expenditure of substantial additional resources. Under PDUFA, the target timeframe for the review of an sNDA to add a new clinical indication is six or ten months from the receipt date, depending on whether or not the sNDA has priority review. As with an NDA, if the FDA determines that it cannot approve an sNDA in its current form, it will issue a complete response letter as discussed above.

​

REMS

​

The FDA has the authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) as a condition of the approval of an NDA or after approval to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. If the FDA determines a REMS is necessary for a new drug, the drug sponsor must submit a proposed REMS plan as part of its NDA prior to approval. The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on a drug already on the market if the FDA determines, based on new safety information, that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and Elements To Assure Safe Use (“ETASU”). In addition, the REMS must include a timetable to periodically assess the strategy, at a minimum, at 18 months, three years, and seven years after the REMS approval. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.

​

In July 2012, the FDA approved a class-wide REMS for extended-release and long-acting opioid products. Extended-release formulations of oxycodone, morphine, hydrocodone and hydromorphone, for example, are required to have a REMS. Manufacturers subject to this class-wide REMS must work together to implement the REMS as part of a single shared system to reduce the burden of the REMS on the healthcare system. The central component of the extended-release/long acting opioid REMS program is an education program for prescribers and patients. Specifically, the REMS includes a Medication Guide available for distribution to patients who are dispensed the drug, as well as a number of ETASU. These ETASU include training for healthcare professionals who prescribe the drug; information provided to prescribers that they can use to educate patients in the safe use, storage, and disposal of opioids; and information provided to prescribers of the existence of the REMS and the need to successfully complete the necessary training. Prescriber training required as part of the REMS is conducted by accredited, independent continuing education providers, without cost to healthcare professionals, under unrestricted grants funded by the opioid analgesic manufacturers. Moreover, REMS assessments must be submitted on an annual basis to assess the extent to which the ETASU are meeting the goals of the REMS and whether the goals or elements should be modified.

​

In September 2018, and pursuant to its Opioids Action Plan, the FDA approved the final class-wide REMS, which includes several measures to facilitate communication of the risks associated with opioid pain medications to patients and health care professionals and, for the first time, applies to immediate-release and extended-release/long-acting opioid analgesics intended for use in an outpatient setting. The new REMS requires that training be made available to health care providers who are involved in the management of patients with pain (including nurses and pharmacists), and not only to prescribers, and requires that the education cover broader information about appropriate pain management, including alternatives to opioids for the treatment of pain. In connection with the new REMS, the FDA also approved new product labeling containing information about the health care provider education available through the new REMS.

​

Table of Contents

Advertising and Promotion

​

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

​

Post-Approval Requirements

​

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to drug listing and registration, recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, adverse event reporting and advertising, marketing and promotion restrictions.

​

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require, in addition to REMS discussed above, post-market testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration subjects entities to periodic announced or unannounced inspections by the FDA or these state agencies, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals, request product recalls, or take other punitive action if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

​

The FDA may require post-approval studies and clinical trials if the FDA finds that scientific data, including information regarding related drugs, deem it appropriate. The purpose of such studies would be to assess a known serious risk or signals of serious risk related to the drug or to identify an unexpected serious risk when available data indicate the potential for a serious risk. The FDA may also require a labeling change if it becomes aware of new safety information that it believes should be included in the labeling of a drug.

​

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

​

Orange Book Listing

​

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or efficacy of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

​

The ANDA applicant is required to make certain certifications to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date

Table of Contents

and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than make certifications concerning a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

​

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

The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired. For further detail regarding our litigation with Teva regarding the ANDA filed by Teva relating to Xtampza ER, refer to “Item 3. Legal Proceedings”.

​

Exclusivity

​

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity (“NCE”), which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which FDA cannot receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug or any Section 505(b)(2) NDA, discussed in more detail below, that relies on the FDA’s findings regarding that drug. A sponsor may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a change to an approved drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the labeling or a new formulation, if the supplement includes reports of new clinical trials (other than bioavailability clinical trials) essential to the approval of the supplement.

​

An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period.

​

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

​

Generally, drug products obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA or an ANDA. A third alternative is a Section 505(b)(2) NDA, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on data not developed by the applicant, such as the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy in the approval of a similar product or published literature in support of its application.

​

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs may provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from clinical trials not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

​

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Thus approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired; until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a NCE, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired; and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant. In the interim period, the FDA may grant tentative approval. Tentative approval indicates that the FDA has determined that the applicant meets the standards for approval as of the date that the tentative approval is granted. Final regulatory approval can only be granted if the FDA is assured that there is no new information that would affect final

Table of Contents

regulatory/ approval. As with traditional NDAs, a Section 505(b)(2) NDA may be eligible for three-year marketing exclusivity, assuming the NDA includes reports of new clinical trials (other than bioavailability clinical trials) essential to the approval of the NDA. For further detail regarding our litigation with Purdue regarding our Section 505(b)(2) NDA for Xtampza ER , refer to “Item 3. Legal Proceedings”.

​

DEA and Opioid Regulation

​

Our products are regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), which establishes registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation and other requirements administered by the DEA.

​

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.

​

Xtampza ER is listed by the DEA as a Schedule II controlled substance under the CSA. The Nucynta Products are also listed by the DEA as Schedule II controlled substances under the CSA. Consequently, the manufacturing, shipping, storing, selling and using of our products is subject to a high degree of regulation. Schedule II drugs are subject to the strictest requirements for registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting. Also, distribution and dispensing of these drugs are highly regulated. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription.

​

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized.

​

In addition, a DEA quota system, which was amended in 2018 to require sponsors to strengthen controls over diversion of controlled substances, controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. In November 2017, the DEA reduced the amount of almost every Schedule II opiate and opioid medication that may be manufactured in the U.S. in calendar year 2018 by 20%. For 2019, the DEA proposed decreased manufacturing quotas for the six most frequently misused opioids, including oxycodone, by an average of 10% as compared to the 2018 quotas. The DEA proposed further decreasing manufacturing quotas in 2020 for five of the six opioids (fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone), by an average of 28%. In October 2019, the DEA proposed additional regulations to amend the manner in which the agency grants quotas to manufacturers. The proposed regulations will establish use-specific quotas, including commercial sales, product development, transfer, replacement and packaging. To decrease the risk of diversion and increase accountability, inventory allowances will be reduced, and procurement quota certifications will be required.

​

Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products are regulated as a Schedule II controlled substances, they are subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme. The DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much active opioid ingredients, such as oxycodone and tapentadol, may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. The limited aggregate amount of opioids that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, who must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production and procurement quotas. We and our contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure any Schedule I or Schedule II substance, including oxycodone base for use in manufacturing Xtampza ER. In addition, Assertio and its contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure tapentadol for use in manufacturing the Nucynta Products. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments.

​

The DEA also requires drug manufacturers to design and implement a system that identifies suspicious orders of controlled substances, such as those of unusual size, those that deviate substantially from a normal pattern and those of

Table of Contents

unusual frequency, prior to completion of the sale. A compliant suspicious order monitoring system includes well-defined due diligence, “know your customer” efforts and order monitoring.

​

To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

​

Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances. We and our contract manufacturers are subject to state regulation on distribution of these products.

​

Two new federal laws address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and illicit opioid use. First, passed in 2016, CARA expands the availability of naloxone for law enforcement and other first responders, forms an interagency task force to develop best practices for pain management with opioid medications and provides resources to improve state monitoring of opioids. The SUPPORT Act, which was signed into law in November 2018, includes a number of measures directed towards regulation and improvement of treatment for substance use-disorder and increased coverage by CMS of medically-assisted treatment options. In addition, the SUPPORT Act requires HHS to report to Congress on existing barriers to access to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations by Medicare Part C and D beneficiaries.

​

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws and Compliance Requirements

​

We are subject to federal, state and local laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry, violations of which can lead to civil and criminal penalties, including fines, imprisonment and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. These laws are potentially applicable to us as both a manufacturer and a supplier of products and they also apply to hospitals, physicians and other potential purchasers of our products. The applicable federal fraud abuse laws apply to products or services reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. Some states, however, have applicable fraud and abuse laws that apply more broadly to include products or services reimbursed by private payors.

​

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)) prohibits knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Remuneration is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, coupons, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute and implementing regulations provide for certain exceptions for “safe harbors” for certain discounting, rebating or personal services arrangements, among other things. However, the lack of uniform court interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute makes compliance with the law difficult. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant criminal fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid and follow-on civil litigation, among other things, for both entities and individuals.

​

Other federal healthcare fraud-related laws also provide criminal liability for violations. The Criminal Healthcare Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347 prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. Federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1001, among other sections, prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

​

The civil False Claims Act and similar state laws impose liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program.

Table of Contents

The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and similar state laws allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal or state government and to share in any monetary recovery. The Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and similar state laws impose reporting requirements for various types of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals. Failure to comply with required reporting requirements under these laws could subject manufacturers and others to substantial civil money penalties. In addition, government entities and private litigants have asserted claims under state consumer protection statutes against pharmaceutical and medical device companies for alleged false or misleading statements in connection with the marketing, promotion and/or sale of pharmaceutical and medical device products, including state investigations and litigation by certain government entities regarding our marketing of opioid products.

​

Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement

​

The commercial success of Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products will depend, in part, upon the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors at the federal, state and private levels. Third-party payors include governmental programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, private insurance plans and managed care plans. These third-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement for a product or therapy in whole or in part if they determine that the product or therapy was not medically appropriate or necessary. Also, third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage through the use of formularies and other cost-containment mechanisms and the amount of reimbursement for particular procedures or drug treatments. In addition, some third-party payors also require preapproval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who prescribe such therapies.

​

The cost of pharmaceuticals and devices continues to generate substantial governmental and third-party payor interest. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations and additional legislative proposals. Our results of operations and business could be adversely affected by current and future third-party payor policies as well as healthcare legislative reforms.

​

While we cannot predict whether any proposed cost-containment measures will be adopted or otherwise implemented in the future, these requirements or any announcement or adoption of such proposals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain adequate prices for Xtampza ER, the Nucynta Products and any other products we may seek to commercialize, and to operate profitably.

​

Healthcare Reform

​

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory 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. The Medicare Modernization Act imposed new requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for our products. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

​

Table of Contents

In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, which significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2012 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reductions to several government programs. These reductions include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional action is taken by Congress. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and, accordingly, our financial operations.

​

In December 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) repealed the shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, commonly referred to as the individual mandate, beginning in 2019. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the repeal will result in over 13 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage over the next ten years, and is likely to lead to increases in insurance premiums. It is uncertain how or whether this legislation may affect our customers and, accordingly, our financial operations.

​

Table of Contents

Other Regulatory Requirements

​

We are also subject to various laws and regulations regarding laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with our research. In each of these areas, as above, the FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad regulatory and enforcement powers, including, among other things, the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products, and withdraw approvals, any one or more of which could have a material adverse effect on us.

​

Employees

​

As of December 31, 2019, we had a total of 255 full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor organization or under any collective-bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good.

​

Executive Officers

​

Joseph Ciaffoni, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Ciaffoni has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since July 2018, and prior to that, served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since May 2017. Prior to joining us, Mr. Ciaffoni served as President, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals of Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, from August 2016 to December 2016. Before that, from April 2012 to August 2016, Mr. Ciaffoni held various positions of increasing responsibility at Biogen Idec, including Senior Vice President, Global Specialty Medicines Group, Senior Vice President, U.S. Commercial and Vice President, U.S. Neurology Field Operations and Marketing. Prior to joining Biogen Idec, Mr. Ciaffoni was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Shionogi Inc. and President of Shionogi Pharmaceuticals from July 2008 to October 2010. Mr. Ciaffoni also previously served as Vice President, Sales for Schering-Plough (now Merck) from May 2004 to June 2008, where he was responsible for the cholesterol franchise, and has held several commercial leadership roles at Sanofi-Synthelabo (now Sanofi) from January 2002 to April 2004 and Novartis from January 1994 to December 2001. Mr. Ciaffoni received a B.A. in Communications in 1993 and an M.B.A. in 2000, both from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. 

​

Alison Fleming, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer. Dr. Fleming has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer since January 2017. Prior to being our Chief Technology Officer, Dr. Fleming led our development team as our Vice President, Product Development since October 2002. Prior to joining us, Dr. Fleming's academic research focused on implantable drug delivery systems for cancer therapy. Dr. Fleming is an inventor on several U.S. patents and pending patent applications, and has authored numerous scientific publications and poster presentations in the field of novel drug delivery systems and abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Dr. Fleming graduated from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1997 with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and received a Ph.D. in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering from Cornell University in 2002.

​

Paul Brannelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Brannelly has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since February 2015. Prior to joining us, Mr. Brannelly served as Senior Vice

Table of Contents

President, Finance and Administration, and Treasurer of Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from June 2013 to August 2014. From August 2014 to November 2014, Mr. Brannelly served as a consultant to Karyopharm. Prior to joining Karyopharm, Mr. Brannelly served as Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Secretary at Verastem, Inc. from August 2010 to May 2013. From January 2010 to September 2011, Mr. Brannelly held the position of Chief Financial Officer at the Longwood Fund, a venture capital firm aimed at investing in, managing and building healthcare companies, where he set up the financial and operational infrastructure following the closing of its first fund and eventually served as Chief Financial Officer of its two startup companies, Verastem and OvaScience, Inc. From November 2005 to September 2009, he served as Vice President, Finance at Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company which GlaxoSmithKline plc purchased for $720 million in 2008. Mr. Brannelly started his biopharmaceutical career at Dyax Corporation from September 1999 to May 2002, and subsequently moved on to positions of increasing responsibility at CombinatoRx Inc. from May 2002 to November 2005, including as Vice President, Finance and Treasurer, where he led the initial public offering process. Mr. Brannelly graduated from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst with a B.B.A. in Accounting in 1995.

​

Scott Dreyer, Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. Mr. Dreyer has served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer since August 2018, and joined us in January 2018 as Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Training. Prior to joining us, Mr. Dreyer served as the Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and Commercial Operations at The Medicines Company, a biopharmaceutical company, from September 2016 to December 2017; Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer – US at Biogen from June 2014 to September 2016; and Vice President, Business Development at Publicis Touchpoint Solutions, a healthcare commercialization company, from October 2013 to June 2014. Mr. Dreyer began his career in the pharmaceutical industry at Merck & Co., where he held roles of increasing responsibility from 1994 to 2013, including Vice President of Hospital and Oncology Sales from 2011 to 2012, and Vice President of Primary Care Sales from 2012 until 2013. Mr. Dreyer holds a B.S. in Biology from Messiah College in 1994.

​

Shirley Kuhlmann, Executive Vice President and General Counsel. Ms. Kuhlmann has served as our Executive Vice President and General Counsel since March 2018. Prior to joining us, Ms. Kuhlmann was a corporate and securities attorney at Pepper Hamilton LLP from September 2007 until March 2018. At Pepper Hamilton, where she was made a partner effective January 2017, Ms. Kuhlmann advised private and public companies on a range of commercial and transactional matters, including financings, corporate governance and disclosure matters, and mergers and acquisitions and other business combination transactions. Ms. Kuhlmann holds a B.A. in Economics/Political Science from Columbia University in 2004 and a J.D. from Emory University School of Law in 2007.

​

Richard Malamut, M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer. Dr. Malamut has served as our Chief Medical Officer since April 2019. Prior to joining us, Dr. Malamut served as Chief Medical Officer, Head of Research and Development and Senior Vice President at Braeburn Pharmaceuticals from June 2018 to January 2019; Chief Medical Officer at Avanir Pharmaceuticals from November 2016 to June 2018; and Senior Vice President of Global Clinical Development at Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd from March 2013 to November 2016. Dr. Malamut also previously held roles of increasing responsibility at Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca focusing on early clinical development and translational medicine in neurology and analgesia. Dr. Malamut holds a medical degree from Hahnemann University in June 1985 and a B.S. in Biology from Trinity College in May 1981. Dr. Malamut worked as a board-certified academic and clinical neurologist for 17 years and has more than 50 publications in the fields of pain medicine, neuromuscular disease, autonomic disease and neurodegenerative disease.

​

Our Corporate Information

​

Our predecessor was incorporated in Delaware in April 2002 under the name Collegium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in October 2003, our predecessor changed its name to Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. In July 2014, we reincorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to a merger whereby Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation, merged with and into Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Virginia corporation, with the Virginia corporation surviving the merger.

​

Available Information

​

We maintain a website at www.collegiumpharma.com. We make available, free of charge on our website, our Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), as

Table of Contents

soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file those reports with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our officers, directors and 10% shareholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. The SEC also maintains a website, at www.sec.gov, that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding us, and other issuers that file electronically. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

​

Table of Contents

If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce our operations.

​

If we require additional capital to fund our operations and we fail to obtain necessary financing, we may be unable to complete the commercialization of our products or the development and commercialization of our future product candidates.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2019, together with expected cash inflows from the commercialization of our products, will enable us to fund our operating expenses, debt service and capital expenditure requirements under our current business plan for the foreseeable future. However, certain economic or strategic factors may require us to seek additional cash through private or public debt or equity offerings.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts, when required or on acceptable terms, we also could be required to:

Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement and involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors, including the factors discussed elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Table of Contents

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our products or technologies.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, receivables or royalty financings, strategic collaborations and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, existing shareholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders. Debt, receivables and royalty financings may be coupled with an equity component, such as warrants to purchase stock, which could also result in dilution of our existing shareholders’ ownership. The incurrence of additional indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and could also result in certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur further debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct our business and may result in additional liens being placed on our assets and intellectual property. If we were to default on any of our indebtedness, we could lose such assets and intellectual property. If we raise additional funds through strategic collaborations and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our products, technologies or revenue streams or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our commercialization or product development efforts or grant rights to develop and market our technologies that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

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

Our predecessor was originally incorporated in Delaware in April 2002 under the name Collegium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in October 2003, our predecessor changed its name to Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. In July 2014, we reincorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to a merger whereby Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation, merged with and into Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Virginia corporation, with the Virginia corporation surviving the merger. From 2002 until 2010, our operations focused primarily on marketing proprietary therapies to the wound care and dermatology industry through our former subsidiary, Onset Therapeutics, LLC, which was spun off and became a part of PreCision Dermatology, Inc. in 2010. Since 2010, our operations have focused primarily on developing the DETERx technology platform and identifying and developing product candidates that utilize the DETERx technology, including our first product, Xtampza ER. Although we began the commercial sale of Xtampza ER in June 2016 and acquired the right to commercialize the Nucynta Products in the United States in January 2018, we have a limited track record of successful commercialization of these products. 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.

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

As of December 31, 2019, we had a federal net operating loss (“NOL”), carryforward of approximately $292.3 million and state NOL carryovers of approximately $222.6 million, which are available to offset future taxable income. The U.S. federal NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2022, and the state NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2030. We also had U.S. federal tax credits of approximately $4.0 million, and state tax credits of approximately $1.1 million. These tax attributes are generally subject to a limited carryover/carryback period and are also subject to the annual limitations that may be imposed under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“IRC 382”).

​

The federal R&D credit generally has a twenty-year carryover term, and our state R&D credit is generally available for a fifteen-year carryover.

​

Under IRC 382, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-ownership change NOLs and other pre-ownership change tax attributes (such as research and development tax credits) to offset its post-change income may be limited. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock ownership some of which are outside our control.

​

During 2019, we completed a study to assess the impact of ownership changes, if any, on our ability to use our NOL and

Table of Contents

tax credit carryovers. As a result of the study, we concluded that there were ownership changes that occurred in the years 2006, 2012 and 2015 that could be subject to IRC 382 limitations. Of our total federal NOL carryovers of $292.3 million at December 31, 2019, approximately $29.0 million are estimated to expire unbenefited due to IRC 382 annual limitations, and approximately $0.1 million of state NOL carryovers are estimated to expire unbenefited due to IRC 382 limitations. In addition, of our federal R&D credit carryovers of $4.0 million at December 31, 2019, approximately $1.2 million are estimated to expire unbenefited due to IRC 382 limitations. These IRC 382 annual limitations may limit our ability to use these pre-ownership change federal and state NOL carryovers and pre-ownership change federal tax credit carryovers, which may potentially increase our future federal and state income tax liability.

​

As of December 31, 2019, and December 31, 2018, we have provided a full valuation allowance for deferred tax assets including NOL and tax credit carryovers.

​

Our indebtedness and liabilities could limit the cash flow available for our operations, expose us to risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and impair our ability to satisfy our obligations to our debtholders.

​

In February 2020, in connection with the Nucynta Acquisition, we incurred (i) $143.8 million in principal amount of indebtedness in the form of convertible notes; and (ii) $200.0 million in secured indebtedness pursuant to our

Loan Agreement with BioPharma Credit PLC, as collateral agent and lender, and BioPharma Credit Investments V (Master) LP, as lender (the “2020 Loan Agreement”). In January 2020, we paid off the outstanding principal and accrued interest under our term loan facility with Silicon Valley Bank with cash on hand. We may also incur additional indebtedness to meet future financing needs. Our indebtedness could have significant negative consequences for our security holders and our business, results of operations and financial condition by, among other things:

​

Our business may not generate sufficient funds, and we may otherwise be unable to maintain sufficient cash reserves, to pay amounts due under our indebtedness, including the convertible notes, and our cash needs may increase in the future. In addition, our 2020 Loan Agreement contains, and any future indebtedness that we may incur may contain, financial and other restrictive covenants that limit our ability to operate our business, raise capital or make payments under our other indebtedness. If we fail to comply with these covenants or to make payments under our indebtedness when due, then we would be in default under that indebtedness, which could, in turn, result in that and our other indebtedness becoming immediately payable in full.

​

We may be unable to raise the funds necessary to repurchase our convertible notes for cash following a fundamental change, or to pay any cash amounts due upon conversion, and our other indebtedness limits our ability to repurchase the notes or pay cash upon their conversion. Noteholders, subject to a limited exception described in the notes, may require us to repurchase their notes following a fundamental change at a cash repurchase price generally equal to the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. In addition, upon conversion, we will satisfy part or all of our conversion obligation in cash unless we elect to settle conversions solely in shares of our common stock. We may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to repurchase the notes or pay the cash amounts due upon conversion. In addition, applicable law, regulatory authorities

Table of Contents

and the agreements governing our other indebtedness may restrict our ability to repurchase the notes or pay the cash amounts due upon conversion. Our failure to repurchase notes or to pay the cash amounts due upon conversion when required will constitute a default under the indenture. A default under the indenture or the fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our other indebtedness, which may result in that other indebtedness becoming immediately payable in full. Concurrently with the closing of the Nucynta Acquisition, we incurred approximately $200.0 million of term loans under our 2020 Loan Agreement. Such indebtedness will amortize on a quarterly basis, and is due to fully mature in 2024. We may not have sufficient funds to satisfy all amounts due under our other indebtedness (including the 2020 Loan Agreement) and the notes.

​

​

Risks Related to our Products

If we are unable to successfully commercialize Xtampza ER or the Nucynta Products, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected and the price of our common stock may decline.

To date, we have invested substantial resources in the development of Xtampza ER, which has been approved by the FDA. In February 2018, we began marketing the Nucynta Products. Our business and future success are substantially dependent on our ability to successfully and timely commercialize these products. We may never be able to successfully commercialize our products.

Our ability to successfully commercialize Xtampza ER will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

Our ability to successfully commercialize the Nucynta Products will depend on many factors including, but not limited to, our ability to:

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

Many of these matters are beyond our control and are subject to other risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully commercialize or generate sufficient revenue from our products. If we cannot do so, or are significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Despite receiving approval by the FDA, additional data may emerge that could change the FDA’s position on the product labeling of Xtampza ER and our ability to successfully market Xtampza ER may be adversely affected.

​

Xtampza ER was approved with label language describing abuse-deterrent properties of the formulation with respect to the nasal and IV routes of abuse, consistent with Guidance for Industry, “Abuse-Deterrent Opioids- Evaluation and Labeling”. In November 2017, the FDA approved an sNDA for Xtampza ER to include comparative oral pharmacokinetic data from a clinical study evaluating the effect of physical manipulation by crushing Xtampza ER compared with OxyContin and a control (oxycodone hydrochloride immediate-release), results from an oral human abuse potential study and the addition of an oral abuse deterrent claim. Per FDA guidance, data that emerges from post-marketing studies or other sources could prompt the FDA to withdraw or amend its approval of the product labeling describing the abuse deterrent properties of the formulation, which withdrawal or amendment could adversely impact our ability to successfully commercialize Xtampza ER.

The FDA can change the product labeling for Xtampza ER at any time. Per FDA guidance, data that emerges from post-marketing studies or other sources could prompt the FDA to withdraw or amend its approval of the product labeling describing the abuse deterrent properties of the formulation. If the product label for Xtampza ER is modified in the future so that the FDA requires us to have additional boxed warning language similar to competitor product labeling stating that “crushing, dissolving or chewing can cause rapid release and absorption of a potentially fatal dose of the active drug” or to exclude the flexible dose administration options, it will limit our ability to differentiate Xtampza ER from other abuse-deterrent opioid and this may have an adverse effect on our business and our prospects for future growth.

Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products are subject to mandatory REMS programs, which could increase the cost, burden and liability associated with the commercialization of these products.

The FDA has approved REMS for extended-release and long acting (“LA”), opioid drugs formulated with the active pharmaceutical ingredients fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and others as part of a federal initiative to address prescription drug abuse and misuse, or the ER/LA opioid REMS. In September 2018, the FDA announced that immediate-release opioid drugs will be subject to the same REMS as ER/LA opioids (now called the Opioid Analgesic REMS). One of the primary goals of the REMS is to ensure that the benefits of these drugs continue to outweigh the risks.

The REMS introduces new safety measures designed to reduce risks and improve the safe use of opioids, while continuing to provide access to these medications for patients in pain. The REMS applies to more than 20 companies that manufacture opioid analgesics. Under the REMS, companies are required to make education programs available to prescribers based on the FDA’s Opioid Analgesic REMS Education Blueprint for Health Care Providers Involved in the

Table of Contents

Treatment and Monitoring of Patients with Pain. It is expected that companies will meet this obligation by providing educational grants to continuing education providers, who will develop and deliver the training. The REMS also requires companies to distribute FDA-approved educational materials to prescribers and patients on the safe use of these drugs. The companies must perform periodic assessments of the implementation of the REMS and the success of the program in meeting its goals. The FDA will review these assessments and may require additional elements to achieve the goals of the program. At present, a physician does not have to complete the training offered under REMS as a prerequisite for ability to prescribe opioids; however, the FDA is considering circumstances where it would require some type of mandatory training as a precondition. Congress has also considered legislation that would require prescribers to have continuing medical education on best practices in prescribing opioids. These requirements, if enacted, could impact the number of prescriptions written by physicians for our products.

Additionally, drug products that fall under the Opioid Analgesic REMS may be subject to class-wide safety labelling changes when FDA determines such changes are warranted. Such labeling has the potential to adversely impact prescribing or market acceptance of these products.

If the FDA determines that a REMS is necessary during review of an application, the drug sponsor must agree to the REMS plan at the time of approval. Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products have been subject to the REMS requirement since their approval. REMS includes a Medication Guide that is dispensed with each prescription, physician training based on FDA-identified learning objectives, audits to ensure that the FDA’s learning objectives are addressed in the physician trainings, letters to prescribing physicians, professional organizations and state licensing entities alerting each to the REMS, and the establishment of a call center to provide more information about the REMS. We anticipate that our future product candidates will also be subject to these REMS requirements. There may be increased cost, administrative burden and potential liability associated with the marketing and sale of these types of product candidates subject to the REMS requirements, which could reduce the commercial benefits to us from the sale of these product candidates.

Although Xtampza ER has been approved with abuse deterrent labeling, the FDA could require changes to such labeling or we could fail to promote such abuse deterrent labeling in compliance with FDA regulations.

Xtampza ER was developed in compliance with the FDA’s April 2015 guidance regarding opioid abuse deterrence and has received FDA-approved product labeling that describes its abuse deterrent features, which allows us to promote those features and differentiate Xtampza ER from other opioid products containing the same active pharmaceutical ingredients. Because the FDA closely regulates promotional materials and other promotional activities, even though the FDA approved product labeling that includes a description of the abuse deterrent characteristics of Xtampza ER, the FDA may object to our marketing claims and product advertising campaigns. This could lead to the issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, suspension or withdrawal of our products from the market, recalls, fines, disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions, and civil or criminal prosecution. Any of these consequences would harm the commercial success of Xtampza ER. In addition, the April 2015 final FDA guidance on abuse-deterrent opioids is not binding law and may be superseded or modified at any time. Also, if the FDA determines that our post-marketing data do not demonstrate that the abuse-deterrent properties result in reduction of abuse, or demonstrate a shift to routes of abuse that present a greater risk, the FDA may find that product labeling revisions are needed, and potentially require the removal of our abuse-deterrence claims, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize Xtampza ER.

Failure to comply with ongoing governmental regulations for marketing any product, including Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products, could delay or inhibit our ability to generate revenues from their sale and could also expose us to claims or other sanctions.

Advertising and promotion of any product that has obtained approval in the United States, including Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products, is heavily scrutinized by, among others, the FDA, the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. Violations, including promotion of our products for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or other government agencies.

In the United States, engaging in off-label promotion of our products, can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, and other litigation and/or investigation, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and

Table of Contents

fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute our drug products. These false claims statutes include the federal False Claims Act, which allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in any fines or settlement funds. False Claims Act lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth in recent years, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements based on certain sales practices promoting off-label drug uses. This increased focus and scrutiny has increased the risk that a pharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs.

If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our products, we could become subject to significant liability, which could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, manufacturer or facility, or our failure to update regulatory files, may result in restrictions, including withdrawal of the product from the market. The failure to obtain or maintain requisite governmental approvals or FDA required product withdrawals or warnings arising from identification of serious and unanticipated adverse side effects, could delay or preclude us from further developing, marketing or realizing the full commercial potential of our products.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Unfavorable outcomes in intellectual property litigation could result in costly litigation and potentially limit our ability to commercialize our products.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to commercialize products without infringing the intellectual property rights of others. Our current or future products, or any uses of them, may now or in the future infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. This is due in part to the considerable uncertainty within the pharmaceutical industry about the validity, scope and enforceability of many issued patents in the United States and, to date, there is no consistency regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical patents. We cannot currently determine the ultimate scope and validity of patents which may be granted to third parties in the future or which patents might be asserted to be infringed by the manufacture, use and sale of our products. In part as a result of this uncertainty, there has been, and we expect that there will continue to be, significant litigation in the pharmaceutical industry regarding patents and other intellectual property rights.

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us, or other parties we have agreed to indemnify, based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. We are aware of third-party patents and patent applications related to oxycodone formulations, including those listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for oxycodone products. Because of the delay between filing and publication of patent applications, and because applications can take several years to issue, there may be currently pending third-party patent applications that are unknown to us, which may later result in issued patents. Because of the uncertainty inherent in intellectual property litigation, we could lose, even if the case against us was weak or flawed.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing or commercializing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our products or force us to cease some of our business operations.

Table of Contents

In connection with any NDA that we file under Section 505(b)(2), we are required to notify the patent holder of the reference listed drug that we identify in our NDA, that we have certified to the FDA that any patents listed for the listed drug in the FDA’s Orange Book publication are invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of our drug. If the patent holder files a patent infringement lawsuit against us within 45 days of its receipt of notice of our certification, the FDA is automatically prevented from approving our Section 505(b)(2) NDA until the earliest of 30 months after the lawsuit is filed, expiration of the patents, settlement of the lawsuit and a court decision in the infringement case that is favorable to us. Accordingly, we may invest significant time and expense in the development of our products only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before our products may be commercialized.

If we are found by the court to have infringed a valid patent claim, we could be prevented from using the patented technology or be required to pay the patent holder for the right to license the patented technology. If we decide to pursue a license to use one or more of these patents, we may not be able to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, or the license we obtain may require us to pay substantial royalties or grant cross licenses to our patent rights. For example, if the relevant patent is owned by a competitor, such as Purdue, that competitor may choose not to license patent rights to us. If we decide to develop alternative technology, we may not be able to do so in a timely or cost-effective manner, if at all.

Even if we are found not to infringe or patent claims are found invalid or unenforceable, defending any such infringement claim would be expensive and time consuming, and could delay the commercialization of our products and distract management from their normal responsibilities.

Competitors may sue us as a way of delaying the introduction of our products. Any litigation, including any interference or derivation proceedings to determine priority of inventions, oppositions or other post-grant review proceedings to patents in the United States, or litigation against our collaborators may be costly and time consuming and could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. We expect that litigation may be necessary in some instances to determine the validity and scope of our proprietary rights. Litigation may be necessary in other instances to determine the validity, scope or non-infringement of certain patent rights claimed by third parties to be pertinent to the manufacture, use or sale of our products. Ultimately, the outcome of such litigation, including our pending litigation with Purdue, could compromise the validity and scope of our patents or other proprietary rights or hinder our ability to manufacture and market our products.

If we are unable to obtain or maintain intellectual property rights for our technologies, products or any future product candidates which we may develop, we may lose valuable assets or be unable to compete effectively in our market.

We depend on our ability to protect our proprietary technology. We rely on patent and trademark laws, unpatented trade secrets and know-how, and confidentiality, licensing and other agreements with employees and third parties, all of which offer only limited protection. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States with respect to our proprietary technology and products.

The steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to preclude misappropriation of our proprietary information or infringement of our intellectual property rights in the United States. The rights already granted under any of our currently issued patents and those that may be granted under future issued patents may not provide us with the proprietary protection or competitive advantages we are seeking.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of our development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficient, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products

Table of Contents

identical, similar or superior to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be adversely affected.

With respect to patent rights, our patent applications may not issue into patents, and any issued patents may not provide protection against competitive technologies, may be held invalid or unenforceable if challenged or may be interpreted in a manner that does not adequately protect our technology or future product candidates. Even if our patent applications issue into patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. The examination process may require us to narrow the claims in our patents, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. Our competitors may design around or otherwise circumvent patents issued to us or licensed by us.

The scope of patent protection in the United States is highly uncertain, and changes in U.S. patent law have increased that uncertainty and could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products or future product candidates.

The patent position of pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States typically are not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights, in the United States, are highly uncertain.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs associated with the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, made significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and litigated. Many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act and, in particular, the “first to file” provisions described below, became effective in 2013. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

Pursuant to the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. In addition, third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) and may become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, or inter partes review challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including novelty, non-obviousness and enablement. It is possible that prior art of which both we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution exists, which could render our patents invalid. Moreover, there may exist prior art of which we were or are aware, and which we did not or do not consider relevant to our patents, but which could nevertheless be determined to render our patents invalid. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position with respect to third parties.

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

Table of Contents

We may be forced to litigate to enforce or defend our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful, and result in the loss of valuable assets.

We may be forced to litigate to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights against infringement and unauthorized use by competitors, and to protect our trade secrets. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets or to determine the validity and scope of our own intellectual property rights. In so doing, we may place our intellectual property at risk of being invalidated, rendered unenforceable or limited or narrowed in scope.

Further, this can be expensive and time consuming. Many of our current and potential competitors have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to defend their intellectual property rights than we can.

Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. In addition, an adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock.

We may not be responsible for or have control over the prosecution or enforceability of our licensed technology and

have to rely on the licensor to enforce or defend our intellectual property.

In some cases, patent prosecution of our licenses is controlled solely by the licensor. If our licensors fail to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from them, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, and our competitors could market competing products using the intellectual property. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

If disputes over intellectual property that we license prevent or impair our ability to maintain such licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products.

We may be subject to claims by third parties of ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property or obligations to make compensatory payments to employees or others.

While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing or

Table of Contents

obtaining such an agreement with each party who, in fact, develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. In addition, they may breach the assignment agreements or such agreements may not be self-executing, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor, or those to whom they communicate with, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed or independently developed, our competitive position would be harmed.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

Many of our employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including potential competitors. These employees typically executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with their previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. We are not aware of any threatened or pending claims related to these matters, but in the future litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs, damage our reputation and be a distraction to management.

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

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

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Products

If we are unable to successfully develop and utilize our own sales and marketing capabilities or enter into strategic alliances with marketing collaborators, we may not be successful in commercializing our products and may be unable to generate sufficient product revenue.

Our commercial organization continues to evolve, and in light of its short history and limited track record, we cannot guarantee that we will be successful in marketing our products that may be approved for marketing. In addition, we compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with extensive and well-funded sales and marketing operations to recruit, hire, train and retain sales and marketing personnel. If we are unable to continue to grow and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, whether independently or with third parties, we may not be able to generate sufficient product revenue and may not become profitable. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products in the United States include:

If we are not successful in recruiting and retaining sales and marketing personnel or in maintaining our sales and marketing infrastructure or if we do not preserve strategic alliances with marketing collaborators, agreements with contract sales organizations or collaboration arrangements, we will have difficulty commercializing our products.

If physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community do not accept and use our products, we will not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.

Physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community may not accept and use our products. Acceptance and use of our products will depend on a number of factors including:

Table of Contents

If our products fail to have an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community, we will not be able to generate sufficient revenue to become or remain profitable. Since we expect to rely on sales generated by Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products for substantially all of our revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of Xtampza ER or the Nucynta Products to maintain market acceptance would harm our business prospects.

Our products contain and our future product candidates may contain controlled substances, the manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of which are subject to regulation by state and federal law enforcement and other regulatory agencies.

Our products contain and our future product candidates may contain, controlled substances that are subject to state and federal laws and regulations regarding their manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution. Xtampza ER’s active ingredient, oxycodone, and the Nucynta Products’ active ingredient, tapentadol, are both classified as Schedule II controlled substances under the CSA and regulations of the DEA. A number of states also independently regulate these drugs, including oxycodone and tapentadol, as controlled substances.

We and our suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, customers and distributors are required to obtain and maintain applicable registrations from state and federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies and comply with state and federal laws and regulations regarding the manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of controlled substances. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription.

Furthermore, the amount of Schedule II substances that can be obtained for clinical trials and commercial distribution is limited by the CSA and DEA regulations. In July 2018, the DEA published final guidelines strengthening the process for setting controls over diversion of controlled substances and making other improvements in the quota management regulatory system. For 2019, the DEA has proposed decreased manufacturing quotas for the six most frequently misused opioids, including oxycodone, by an average of 10% as compared to the 2018 quotas. The DEA has proposed further decreasing manufacturing quotas in 2020 for five of the six opioids (fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone), by an average of 28%. Together with reductions in morphine, this is a 53% decrease since 2016. In October 2019, the DEA proposed additional regulations to amend the manner in which the agency grants quotas to manufacturers. The proposed regulations will establish use-specific quotas, including commercial sales, product development, transfer, replacement, and packaging. To decrease the risk of diversion and increase accountability, inventory allowances will be reduced, and procurement quota certifications will be required. We may not be able to obtain sufficient quantities of these controlled substances in order to complete our clinical trials or meet commercial demand. If commercial demand for Xtampza ER, or any of our other approved products, increases and we cannot meet such demand in a timely fashion because of our limited supply of its active pharmaceutical ingredient (in the case of Xtampza ER, oxycodone) then physicians may perceive such product as unavailable and may be less likely to prescribe it in the future.

In addition, controlled substances are also subject to regulations governing manufacturing, labeling, packaging, testing, dispensing, production and procurement quotas, recordkeeping, reporting, handling, shipment and disposal. These regulations increase the personnel needs and the expense associated with development and commercialization of our products that include controlled substances. The DEA and some states conduct periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances.

Failure to obtain and maintain required registrations or to comply with any applicable regulations could delay or preclude us from developing and commercializing our products that contain controlled substances and subject us to

Table of Contents

enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings. Because of their restrictive nature, these regulations could limit commercialization of our products containing controlled substances.

Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to commercialize our products and may reduce the prices we are able to obtain for our products.

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system generally, and the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of opioids in particular, that could prevent or delay marketing approval of future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities or affect our ability to profitably sell our products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Effective July 2019, New York imposed an excise tax on the first sale of an opioid unit by a registrant in New York based on morphine milligram equivalents. In addition, in 2019 several other states, including Delaware, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, enacted laws that imposed similar taxes or fees on the sale of opioids. Other states could impose similar taxes or fees, and such laws and proposals can vary in the tax and fee amounts imposed and the means of calculation. Liabilities for taxes or assessments under any such laws could have an adverse impact on our results of operations.

Laws intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms may continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing of our products may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

In October 2018, President Trump signed the Substance Use Disorder Prevention That Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act. Among other things, this legislation provides funding for research and development of non-addictive painkillers that could potentially compete with our products. It also clarifies FDA’s authority to require that certain opioids be dispensed in packaging that limits their abuse potential, makes changes to Medicare and Medicaid in an effort to limit over-prescription of opioid painkillers, and increases penalties against manufacturers and distributors related to the over-prescription of opioids, including the failure to report suspicious orders and keep accurate records. The ultimate effect of this legislation is currently not known, but could potentially have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, state pharmacy laws may permit pharmacists to substitute generic products for branded products if the products are therapeutic equivalents, or may permit pharmacists and pharmacy benefit managers to seek prescriber authorization to substitute generics in place of our products, which could significantly diminish demand for them and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our products and generate revenues.

Our products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Such pricing regulations may address the rebates that manufacturers offer to pharmaceutical benefit managers, or the discounts that manufacturers provide others within the pharmaceutical distribution chain.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products can vary widely. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in our products.

Table of Contents

Our ability to commercialize any product successfully will also depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with discounts and rebates from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We have agreed to provide such discounts and rebates to certain third-party payors. We expect increasing pressure to offer larger discounts and rebates. Additionally, a greater number of third-party payors may seek discounts and rebates in order to offer or maintain access for our products. 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 and whether it will be satisfactory.

In January 2019, as part of its cost containment efforts for government-reimbursed prescription medications, HHS released a proposed rule that (1) eliminates federal anti-kickback statue safe harbor protection for rebates paid to prescription benefit managers; (2) creates a new safe harbor for discounts provided to beneficiaries at the point of sale; and (3) creates a new safe harbor for administrative fees paid by manufacturers to prescription benefit managers. The goal of the proposed safe harbor changes is to eliminate rebates from manufacturers to prescription benefit managers and replace them with point-of-sale discounts to beneficiaries. The proposed new rule only applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage and Medicaid plans, not to private commercial insurance plans. The proposed regulation faces opposition from pharmacy benefit managers and others who do not believe it will have its intended effect of reducing overall costs to government beneficiaries. We cannot be sure whether the proposed rule will be adopted either in its current form or in an amended form, and do not know what impact the uncertainty will have on our agreements and relationships with pharmacy benefit managers and other pertinent parties. If the rule is finalized, we will likely be required to alter our agreements with these parties to come into compliance with the new rule, and it is uncertain what financial impact these alterations will have on our list prices, discounts, and reimbursement levels for our products

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

Social issues around the abuse of opioids, including law enforcement concerns over diversion of opioids and regulatory efforts to combat abuse, could decrease the potential market for our products and may adversely impact external investor perceptions of our business.

Media stories regarding prescription drug abuse and the diversion of opioids and other controlled substances are commonplace. Law enforcement and regulatory agencies may apply policies and guidelines that seek to limit the availability or use of opioids. Such efforts may inhibit our ability to commercialize our products.

Aggressive enforcement and unfavorable publicity regarding, for example, the use or misuse of oxycodone or other opioid drugs; the limitations of abuse-resistant formulations; the ability of drug abusers to discover previously unknown ways to abuse opioid drugs, including Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products; public inquiries and investigations into prescription drug abuse; litigation; or regulatory activity regarding sales, marketing, distribution or storage of opioid drugs could have a material adverse effect on our reputation. Such negative publicity could reduce the potential size of the market for our products, decrease the revenues we are able to generate from their sale and adversely impact external investor perceptions of our business. Similarly, to the extent opioid abuse becomes less prevalent or less urgent of a

Table of Contents

public health issue, regulators and third party payers may not be willing to pay a premium for abuse-deterrent formulations of opioid.

Many state legislatures have enacted legislation intended to reduce opioid abuse, for example by establishing prescription drug monitoring programs and mandating prescriber education. The SUPPORT Act allows for sharing of this type of data across state lines. Efforts by the FDA and other regulatory and legislative bodies to combat abuse of opioids may negatively impact the market for our products. In February 2016, the FDA released an action plan to address the opioid abuse epidemic and reassess the FDA’s approach to opioid medications. The plan identifies the FDA’s focus on implementing policies to reverse the opioid abuse epidemic, while maintaining access to effective treatments. The actions set forth in the FDA’s plan include strengthening post marketing study requirements to evaluate the benefit of long-term opioid use, changing the REMS requirements to provide additional funding for physician education courses, releasing a draft guidance setting forth approval standards for generic-abuse deterrent opioid formulations, and seeking input from the FDA’s Science Board to broaden the understanding of the public risks of opioid abuse. The FDA’s Science Board met to address these issues on March 1, 2016. In November 2017, FDA issued a final guidance addressing approval standards for generic abuse-deterrent opioid formulations, which included recommendations about the types of studies that companies should conduct to demonstrate that the generic drug is no less abuse-deterrent than its brand-name counterpart. In September 2018, the FDA announced that IR opioid drugs will be subject to the same REMS as ER/LA opioids (now called the Opioid Analgesic REMS). One of the primary goals of the REMS is to ensure that the benefits of these drugs continue to outweigh the risks The FDA’s plan is part of a broader initiative led by the HHS to address opioid-related overdose, death and dependence. The HHS initiative’s focus is on improving physician’s use of opioids through education and resources to address opioid over-prescribing, increasing use and development of improved delivery systems for naloxone, which can reverse overdose from both prescription opioids and heroin, to reduce overdose-related deaths, and expanding the use of Medication-Assisted Treatment, which couples counseling and behavioral therapies with medication to address substance abuse. As part of this initiative, the CDC has launched a state grant program to offer state health departments resources to assist with abuse prevention efforts, including efforts to track opioid prescribing through state-run electronic databases. In March 2016, as part of the HHS initiative, the CDC released a Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. The guideline is intended to assist primary care providers treating adults for chronic pain in outpatient settings. The guideline provides recommendations to improve communications between doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy. The guideline states that no treatment recommendations about the use of abuse-deterrent opioids can be made at this time. The SUPPORT Act, described above, also addresses opioid-related abuse by, among other things, seeking to increase access to and reimbursement for addiction treatment, advancing new initiatives to promote education and awareness of appropriate pain treatment among health care providers and improving coordination among federal agencies in relation to border checks.

The FDA continues to evaluate extended-release and abuse-deterrent opioids in the post-market setting. In March 2017, the FDA’s Advisory Committee met to discuss OPANA ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride) extended-release tablets. A majority of the Advisory Committee voted that the benefits do not outweigh the risks of OPANA ER. Upon the FDA’s subsequent request in June 2017, OPANA ER was removed from the market. Also, in July 2017, the FDA held a public workshop to discuss available data and methods to assess the impact of opioid formulations with abuse-deterrent properties on misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose, and death in the post-market context. The FDA will continue to scrutinize the impact of abuse-deterrent opioids and in the future could impose further restrictions to products currently on the market, which may include changing labeling, imposing additional prescribing restrictions, or seeking a product’s removal from the market.

Recently, CVS Pharmacy announced it would only fill first-time opioid prescriptions for acute pain for a seven day supply. In July 2017, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade association representing pharmacy benefit managers, wrote a letter to the commissioner of the FDA in which it expressed support for, among other things, the CDC guidelines and a seven-day limit on the supply of opioids for acute pain. In addition, states, including the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia and the States of New York, Ohio, Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Colorado, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Carolina, Washington and New Jersey, have either recently enacted, intend to enact, or have pending legislation or regulations designed to, among other things, limit the duration and quantity of initial prescriptions of immediate-release forms of opiates and mandate the use by prescribers of prescription drug databases and mandate prescriber education. FDA has announced that it will advance policies to require that immediate-release formulations of opioids be made available in fixed-quantity packaging- such as blister

Table of Contents

packs- to further encourage the writing of prescriptions for short durations for common acute pain conditions and procedures. Also, at the state and local level, a number of states and cities have brought separate lawsuits against various pharmaceutical companies marketing and selling opioid pain medications, alleging misleading or otherwise improper promotion of opioid drugs to physicians and consumers. In addition, the attorneys general from several states have announced the launch of a joint investigation into the marketing and sales practices of drug companies that market opioid pain medications. We are currently subject to such lawsuits and investigations, as discussed under the heading “Legal Proceedings” in this report. Many of these changes and others could cause us to expend additional resources in developing and commercializing our products to meet additional requirements. Advancements in development and approval of generic abuse-deterrent opioids could also compete with and potentially impact physician use of our products and cause our products to be less commercially successful.

If the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities approve generic products with abuse deterrent claims that compete with our products, our sales could decline.

Once an NDA, including a Section 505(b)(2) application, is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “listed drug” which can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA regulations and other applicable regulations and policies provide incentives to manufacturers to create modified, non-infringing versions of a drug to facilitate the approval of an ANDA or other application for generic substitutes. These manufacturers might only be required to conduct a relatively inexpensive study to show that their product has the same active pharmaceutical ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, and conditions of use, or product labeling, as our product and that the generic product is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent as, or is bioequivalent to, our product. These generic equivalents would be significantly less costly than ours to bring to market and companies that produce generic equivalents are generally able to offer their products at lower prices. Thus, after the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product are typically lost to the generic product. Accordingly, competition from generic equivalents to our products would substantially limit our ability to generate revenues and therefore to obtain a return on the investments we have made in our products. In November 2017, FDA issued a final guidance to assist industry in the development of generic versions of approved opioids with abuse-deterrent formulations, including recommendations about the types of studies that companies should conduct to demonstrate that the generic drug is no less abuse-deterrent than its brand-name counterpart. In the second half of 2018, the FDA posted three revised product-specific guidances related to generic abuse-deterrent opioid formulations, including one guidance specifically relating to Xtampza ER, which recommend specific in vivo studies and in vitro study considerations for abuse deterrence evaluations. These guidances are part of FDA’s wider focus on assisting developers of generic abuse-deterrent formulations navigate the regulatory path to market more quickly. Earlier market entry of generic abuse-deterrent formulations could have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

Guidelines and recommendations published by various organizations can reduce the use of our products.

​

Government agencies promulgate regulations and guidelines directly applicable to us and to our products. In addition, professional societies, practice management groups, private health and science foundations and organizations involved in various diseases from time to time may also publish guidelines or recommendations to the healthcare and patient communities. Recommendations of government agencies or these other groups or organizations may relate to such matters as usage, dosage, route of administration and use of concomitant therapies. Recommendations or guidelines suggesting the reduced use of our products or the use of competitive or alternative products as the standard of care to be followed by patients and healthcare providers could result in decreased use of our products.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

If the third-party manufacturers of Xtampza ER or the Nucynta Products fail to devote sufficient time and resources to these products, or their performance is substandard, and/or we encounter challenges in completing our dedicated facility at our third-party manufacturer’s site for the manufacturing of Xtampza ER, our costs may be higher than expected and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We do not own any manufacturing facilities and have limited experience in drug development and commercial manufacturing. We currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing facility. We lack the resources and expertise to manufacture and test, on a commercial scale, the technical performance of our

Table of Contents

products. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on a limited number of experienced personnel and contract manufacturers for our products, as well as other vendors to formulate, test, supply, store and distribute our products and we control only certain aspects of their activities. In 2016, we began to construct a dedicated facility for a portion of the Xtampza ER manufacturing process, at a site operated by our contract manufacturing organization, Patheon. This dedicated facility has required significant capital expenditures and, when operational, is likely to result in significantly increased fixed costs. This dedicated facility requires the maintenance of additional regulatory approvals and entails other costs, all of which we will need to absorb. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully leverage the dedicated facility in a timely or profitable manner, or within the budget that we currently project. If the demand for Xtampza ER and any future related products never meets our expectations and forecasts, or if we do not produce the output we plan, we may not be able to realize the return on investment we anticipated, which would have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Although we have identified alternate sources for these services, it would be time-consuming, and require us to incur additional cost, to qualify these sources.

Our reliance on a limited number of vendors and, in particular, Patheon, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, as our single manufacturer for Xtampza ER and the future manufacturer of Nucynta ER, exposes us to the following risks, any of which could delay commercialization of our products, result in higher costs, or deprive us of potential product revenues:

Failure to obtain the necessary active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients or components necessary to manufacture our products could adversely affect our ability to commercialize the product, which could in turn adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Certain components of Xtampza ER are naturally derived products, for which we rely on sole suppliers. The inability of any of our raw material suppliers to provide components that meet our specifications and requirements could adversely impact our ability to manufacture our product. Furthermore, the quota procurement process limits the amount of DEA-controlled active pharmaceutical ingredient we have available for manufacture. Consequently, we are limited in our ability to execute a business strategy that builds appreciable safety stock of finished drug product.

​

Our reliance on third parties reduces our control over our development and commercialization activities but does not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required legal, regulatory and scientific standards. The FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our products to be manufactured according to cGMP. Any failure by our third-party manufacturer to comply with cGMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure

Table of Contents

to deliver sufficient quantities of products in a timely manner, could lead to a shortage of commercial product. In addition, such failure could be the basis for the FDA to issue a warning or untitled letter, withdraw approvals for products previously granted to us, or take other regulatory or legal action, including recall or seizure, total or partial suspension of production, suspension of ongoing clinical trials, refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, detention or product, refusal to permit the import or export of products, injunction, imposing civil penalties or pursuing criminal prosecution.

​

Any stock out, or failure to obtain sufficient supplies of any of our products, or the necessary active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients or components necessary to manufacture each of our products, could adversely affect our ability to commercialize such products, which could in turn adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Assertio, our previous commercialization partner with respect to the Nucynta Products, experienced delays in the manufacture, packaging and delivery of certain dosage strengths of Nucynta ER in the third and fourth quarters of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018 following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in Puerto Rico. We may experience further outages in the future.

Because we currently rely on a sole supplier to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient of our products, any production problems with our supplier could have a material adverse effect on us.

We presently depend upon a single supplier for the active pharmaceutical ingredient for Xtampza ER (oxycodone base) and the Nucynta Products (tapentadol) and we contract with this supplier for commercial supply of our products. Although we have identified an alternate source for oxycodone base for Xtampza ER, it would be time-consuming and costly to qualify this source. Any changes executed by our supplier to the respective drug substance raw materials, intermediates, or manufacturing processes would introduce technical and regulatory risks to our downstream drug product supply. If our supplier were to terminate an arrangement for an active pharmaceutical ingredient, or fail to meet our supply needs, we might incur substantial costs and be forced to delay our development or commercialization programs. Any such delay could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Manufacturing issues may arise that could increase product and regulatory approval costs, delay commercialization or limit commercial supply.

In our current commercial manufacturing operations, and as we scale up manufacturing of our products and conduct required stability testing, we may encounter product, packaging, equipment and process-related issues that may require refinement or resolution in order to proceed with our planned clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval for commercial marketing and build commercial supplies. In the future, we may identify impurities, which could result in increased scrutiny by regulatory authorities, delays in our clinical programs and regulatory approval, increases in our operating expenses, failure to obtain or maintain approval or limitations in our commercial supply.

We depend on wholesale pharmaceutical distributors for retail distribution of our products; if we lose any of our significant wholesale pharmaceutical distributors, that loss may materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

A significant percentage of our product shipments are to a limited number of independent wholesale pharmaceutical distributors. Three of our wholesale pharmaceutical distributors represented 34%, 31% and 30% of our product shipments for the year ended December 31, 2019. The loss by us of any of these wholesale pharmaceutical distributors’ accounts, or a material reduction in their purchases, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The significance of each wholesale pharmaceutical distributor account to our business adversely impacts our ability to negotiate favorable commercial terms with each such distributor, and as a result, we may be forced to accept terms that adversely impact our results of operations.

In addition, these wholesale customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for pharmaceutical products in the United States. This distribution network has undergone, and may continue to undergo, significant consolidation marked by mergers and acquisitions. As a result, a small number of large wholesale distributors control a significant share of the market. Consolidation of drug wholesalers has increased, and may continue to increase, competitive and pricing pressures on pharmaceutical products. We cannot guarantee that we can manage these pricing pressures or that wholesaler purchases will not fluctuate unexpectedly from period to period.

Table of Contents

Our products could be subject to post-marketing requirements, which requirements may, in some cases, not be capable of timely or satisfactory completion without participation in consortia over which we have limited control.

Our products are subject to a comprehensive regulatory scheme, including post-marketing requirements (“PMRs”) to conduct epidemiological studies and clinical trials. We intend to fulfill our PMRs by virtue of our participation in the Opioid PMR Consortium (“OPC”). Although we retain discretion in how to discharge such PMRs, the scale and scope of the studies required by the FDA make it cost prohibitive to discharge these requirements other than by joining the OPC that was formed to conduct them. We are a member of OPC and engage in decision-making as a member of that organization, but do not have a majority. If the OPC fails to conduct sufficiently rigorous studies or is unable to achieve the patient enrollment or other requirements established by the FDA, we may be unable to satisfy our PMRs and the FDA may choose to withdraw or otherwise restrict its approval of our products. Such withdrawal or restriction would have an adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

In the future, we may depend on collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our products. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these products.

We may not be successful in establishing development and commercialization collaborations, which could adversely affect, and potentially prohibit, our ability to develop or commercialize our products. These collaborations pose the following risks to us:

Table of Contents

We rely on third parties to conduct our non-clinical and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, or if they terminate their agreement with us, we may not be able to maintain regulatory approval for our products and our business could suffer a material adverse effect.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon contract research organizations (“CROs”) to monitor and manage data for our ongoing non-clinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our non-clinical and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs are required to comply with federal regulations and current good clinical practices (“GCP”), which are international standards meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, advisors and monitors, enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area and foreign regulatory authorities in the form of International Conference on Harmonization guidelines for all of our products. We are also subject to GLP requirements for our non-clinical study programs. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP and GLP through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, trial sites and animal study sites. In addition, we and our CROs are required to comply with special regulations regarding the enrollment of recreational drug abusers in clinical trials. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP and other regulations, including as a result of any recent changes in such regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP requirements. While we have agreements governing activities of our CROs, we have limited influence over their actual performance. Failure to comply with applicable regulations in the conduct of the clinical trials for our products may require us to repeat preclinical studies and clinical trials, which would have an adverse impact on our commercial efforts.

Our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical and preclinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our products. As a result, the commercial prospects for our products would be harmed, our costs could increase substantially and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus, and there is a limited number of CROs that are equipped and willing to manage clinical trials that involve recreational drug abusers. Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the patients participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated. Identifying, qualifying and managing performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time-consuming and cause delays in our development programs. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work and the new CRO may not provide the same type or level of services as the original provider. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs,

Table of Contents

there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. If any of our relationships with our CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

Our internal capacity to perform these functions is limited. Outsourcing these functions involves risks that third parties may not perform to our standards, may not produce results in a timely manner or may fail to perform at all. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. We currently have a small number of employees, which limits the internal resources we have available to identify and monitor our third-party providers. To the extent we are unable to identify and successfully manage the performance of third-party service providers in the future, our ability to advance our products through clinical trials will be compromised. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy

​

Litigation or regulatory action regarding opioid medications could negatively affect our business.

​

Beginning in 2018, lawsuits alleging damages related to opioids have been filed naming us as a defendant along with other manufacturers of prescription opioid medications. These lawsuits, filed in multiple jurisdictions, are brought by various local governments as well as private claimants, against various manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies throughout the United States. These lawsuits generally contend that we have engaged in improper marketing practices related to Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including abatement, restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. In some of the lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking joint and several liability among the defendants. None of the complaints specify the exact amount of damages at issue. These cases are generally in early stages of litigation.

​

In addition, certain governmental and regulatory agencies are focused on the abuse of opioid medications, a concern we share, and we have received Civil Investigation Demands or subpoenas from four state attorneys general, investigating our sales and marketing of opioids and seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of opioid medications. We are cooperating fully in these investigations. Managing litigation and responding to governmental investigations is costly and may involve a significant diversion of management attention. Such proceedings are unpredictable and may develop over lengthy periods of time. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve injunctive relief or substantial monetary penalties, either or both of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows.

​

We face substantial competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products more successfully than we do.

The competition in the pain and opioid market is intense. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions.

Our products compete with oral opioids, transdermal opioids, local anesthetic patches, stimulants and implantable and external infusion pumps that can be used for infusion of opioids and local anesthetics. Products of these types are marketed by Actavis, BioDelivery Sciences, Endo, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, Purdue, Teva, and others. Some of these current and potential future competitors may be addressing the same therapeutic areas or indications as we are. Many of our current and potential future competitors have significantly greater research and development capabilities than we do, have substantially more marketing, manufacturing, financial, technical, human and managerial resources than we do, and have more institutional experience than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we are able to or may obtain patent

Table of Contents

protection or other intellectual property rights that allow them to develop and commercialize their products before us and limit our ability to develop or commercialize our products. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are safer, more effective, more widely used and less costly than ours, and they may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

Our competitors have developed or are in the process of developing technologies that are, or in the future may be, the basis for competitive products. Some of these products may have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing similar therapeutic effects than our products. Our competitors may develop products that are safer, more effective or less costly than our products and, therefore, present a serious competitive threat to our product offerings.

The widespread acceptance of currently available therapies with which our products compete may limit market acceptance of our products. Oral medications, transdermal drug delivery systems, such as drug patches, injectable products and implantable drug delivery devices are currently available treatments for chronic pain, are widely accepted in the medical community and have a long history of use. These treatments will compete with our products and the established use of these competitive products may limit the potential for our products to receive widespread acceptance.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain our key personnel.

We are highly dependent upon the services of our key personnel, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Ciaffoni, our Chief Technology Officer, Alison Fleming, PhD, our Chief Financial Officer, Paul Brannelly, our Chief Commercial Officer, Scott Dreyer, our General Counsel, Shirley Kuhlmann, and our Chief Medical Officer, Richard Malamut, M.D. Each employee is employed by us at will and is permitted to terminate his or her employment with us at any time pursuant to the terms of his or her employment agreement. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. The loss of the services of Mr. Ciaffoni, Dr. Fleming, Mr. Brannelly, Mr. Dreyer, Ms. Kuhlmann or Dr. Malamut could impede the achievement of our development and commercialization objectives.

If we are unable to attract and retain highly qualified employees, we may not be able to achieve future success.

Our future growth and success depend on our ability to recruit, retain, manage and motivate our scientific, clinical, manufacturing and commercial employees. The loss of any member of our senior management team or the inability to hire or retain experienced management personnel could compromise our ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. Because of the specialized nature of our business, we rely heavily on our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel. The competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical field is intense, and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary to execute business or to recruit suitable replacement personnel.

We may acquire other assets or businesses, or form collaborations or make investments in other companies or technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, dilute our shareholders’ ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of assets, including preclinical, clinical or commercial stage products or businesses, in-licensing or out-licensing of products or technologies, or other strategic alliances and collaborations, to expand our existing technologies and operations. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We have limited experience with acquiring other companies, products or product candidates, and limited experience with licensing and forming strategic alliances and collaborations. We may not find suitable acquisition candidates, and if we make an acquisition, we may not integrate the acquisition successfully into our existing business and we may incur additional debt or assume unknown or contingent liabilities in connection therewith. Integration of an acquired company or assets may also disrupt ongoing operations, require the hiring of additional personnel and the implementation of additional internal systems and infrastructure, especially the acquisition of commercial assets, and require management resources that would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. We may not be able to find suitable strategic alliances or collaborators or identify other investment opportunities, and we may experience losses related to any such investments.

Table of Contents

To finance any acquisitions, licenses or collaborations, we may incur significant transaction expenses and we may choose to issue debt or shares of our common or preferred stock as consideration. Any such issuance of shares would dilute the ownership of our shareholders. If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire, license, or otherwise obtain rights to other assets or companies or fund a transaction using our stock as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for acquisitions through public or private financings. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

Commercial sales of our products and clinical trials of our products and any future product candidates may expose us to expensive product liability claims, and we may not be able to maintain product liability insurance on reasonable terms or at all.

We currently carry product liability insurance. Product liability claims may be brought against us by patients, healthcare providers, others using, administering or selling our products or patients enrolled in our clinical trials. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our products caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Our inability to maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of our products. Any agreements we may enter into in the future with collaborators in connection with the development or commercialization of our products may entitle us to indemnification against product liability losses, but such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise. In addition, many of our agreements require us to indemnify third parties and these indemnification obligations may exceed the coverage under our product liability insurance policy.

Our products may be associated with undesirable adverse reactions or have other properties that could result in significant negative consequences.

Undesirable adverse reactions associated with our products could cause us, institutional review boards, clinical trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a restrictive product label or the delay, denial or withdrawal of regulatory approval by the FDA. For example, even though Xtampza ER was generally

Table of Contents

well tolerated by patients in our clinical trials, in some cases there were adverse reactions, one of which was a serious adverse event, moderate in severity, of gastroesophageal reflux.

If we or others identify undesirable adverse events associated with our products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

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

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, wholesalers, distributors, consultants and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, wholesalers, distributors, consultants and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates:

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. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a Code of Ethics, but 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 such 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 material adverse effect on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our

Table of Contents

operations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Our relationships with customers and payors are subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our products. Our arrangements with payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products and any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations may affect our ability to operate and expose us to areas of risk, including:

Table of Contents

While we do not submit claims and our customers will make the ultimate decision on how to submit claims, we may provide reimbursement guidance and support regarding our products to our customers and patients. If a government authority were to conclude that we provided improper advice to our customers and/or encouraged the submission of false claims for reimbursement, we could face action by government authorities. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Nonetheless, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur significant costs.

In connection with our research and development activities and our manufacture of materials and products, we are subject to federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and policies governing the use, generation, manufacture, storage, air emission, effluent discharge, handling and disposal of certain materials, biological specimens and wastes. Although we believe that we have complied with the applicable laws, regulations and policies in all material respects and have not been required to correct any material noncompliance, we may be required to incur significant costs to comply with environmental and health and safety regulations in the future. Current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our research and development involves the use, generation and disposal of hazardous materials, including chemicals, solvents, agents and biohazardous materials. Although we believe that our safety procedures for storing, handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. We currently contract with third parties to dispose of these substances that we generate, and we rely on these third parties to properly dispose of these substances in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. If these third parties do not properly dispose of these substances in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, we may be subject to legal action by governmental agencies or private parties for improper disposal of these substances. The costs of defending such actions and the potential liability resulting from such actions are often very large. In the event we are subject to such legal action or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, generation and disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals, we could be held liable for any damages that result, and any such liability could exceed our resources.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims, but we may not continue to maintain such insurance in the future, and such insurance, to the extent maintained, may not be adequate to cover liabilities that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

Table of Contents

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, accidents or security breaches.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our CROs, contract manufacturing organization and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks and other malfeasance, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. System failures, accidents or security breaches could cause interruptions in our operations, and could result in a material disruption of our commercial and clinical activities and business operations, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our commercialization and drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further commercialization of our products could be delayed.

Changes in data privacy and protection laws and regulations, or any failure to comply with such laws and regulations, could adversely affect our business and financial results.

​

Legislators and regulators in the U.S. are proposing new and more robust cybersecurity rules in light of the recent broad-based cyberattacks at a number of companies. These initiatives could increase the cost of developing, implementing or securing our servers and require us to allocate more resources to improved technologies, adding to our information technology and compliance costs. In addition, enforcement actions and investigations by regulatory authorities related to data security incidents and privacy violations continue to increase. The enactment of more restrictive laws, rules, regulations, or future enforcement actions or investigations could impact us through increased costs or restrictions on our business, and noncompliance could result in regulatory penalties and significant legal liability.

​

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile and you may lose all or part of your investment.

The market price of our common stock is highly volatile and may be subject to wide fluctuations in response to numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control. In addition to the factors discussed in these Risk Factors, these factors include:

Table of Contents

In addition, the stock market in general, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks stated above could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

As we operate in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, we are especially vulnerable to these factors to the extent that they affect our industry or our products. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, and could also require us to make substantial payments to satisfy judgments or to settle litigation.

Table of Contents

Actual or potential sales of our common stock by our directors or employees, including our executive officers, pursuant to pre-arranged stock trading plans or otherwise could cause our stock price to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons, and actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by investors.

In accordance with the guidelines specified under Rule 10b5-1 of the Exchange Act and our policies regarding stock transactions, our directors and employees, including our executive officers, could adopt stock trading plans pursuant to which they may sell shares of our common stock from time to time in the future. Generally, sales under such plans by our executive officers and directors require public filings. Actual or potential sales of our common stock by such persons could cause our common stock to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons. For example, a substantial number of shares of our common stock becoming available (or being perceived to become available) for sale in the public market could cause the market price of our common stock to fall or prevent it from increasing. Also, actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by investors.

Future issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our shareholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

Significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To raise capital, we may sell substantial amounts of common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock. These future issuances of common stock or common stock-related securities, together with the exercise of outstanding options and any additional shares issued in connection with acquisitions, if any, may result in material dilution to our investors. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing shareholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock.

We are subject to anti-takeover provisions in our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and under Virginia law that could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company, even if the acquisition would be beneficial to our shareholders.

Certain provisions of Virginia law, the state in which we are incorporated, and our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could hamper a third party’s acquisition of us, or discourage a third party from attempting to acquire control of us. These provisions include:

Table of Contents

These provisions also could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. In addition, these provisions make it more difficult for our shareholders to remove our Board of Directors or management or elect new directors to our Board of Directors.

We may fail to qualify for continued listing on The NASDAQ Global Select Market which could make it more difficult for investors to sell their shares.

Our common stock is listed on The NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”). As a NASDAQ listed company, we are required to satisfy the continued listing requirements of NASDAQ for inclusion in the Global Select Market to maintain such listing, including, among other things, the maintenance of a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share and shareholders’ equity of at least $10.0 million. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain compliance with the continued listing requirements or that our common stock will not be delisted from NASDAQ in the future. If our common stock is delisted by NASDAQ, we could face significant material adverse consequences, including:

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal control over financial reporting. We are required, under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. This assessment must include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that results in more than a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act also generally requires an attestation from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

Table of Contents

During the evaluation and testing process, if we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we will be unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. We cannot assure you that there will not be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain internal control over financial reporting could severely inhibit our ability to accurately report our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. If we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness or significant deficiency in our internal control over financial reporting once that firm begin its reviews, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our common stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by NASDAQ, the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We are subject to the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.

These inherent limitations reflect the reality that judgments can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

The exercise of options and warrants and other issuances of shares of common stock or securities convertible into or exercisable for shares of common stock will dilute your ownership interests and may adversely affect the future market price of our common stock.

Sales of our common stock in the public market, either by us or by our current shareholders, or the perception that these sales could occur, could cause a decline in the market price of our securities. All of the shares of our common stock held by those of our current shareholders may be immediately eligible for resale in the open market either in compliance with an exemption under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act, or pursuant to an effective resale registration statement that we have previously filed with the SEC. Such sales, along with any other market transactions, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2019, there were outstanding options to purchase an aggregate of 3,955,887 shares of our common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $16.00 per share, of which options to purchase 2,094,720 shares of our common stock were then exercisable. In addition, as of December 31, 2019, we had an outstanding warrant with Assertio to purchase 1,041,667 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $19.20 per share. The exercise of options and warrants at prices below the market price of our common stock could adversely affect the price of shares of our common stock. Additional dilution may result from the issuance of shares of our common stock in connection with collaborations or manufacturing arrangements or in connection with other financing efforts.

Any issuance of our common stock that is not made solely to then-existing shareholders proportionate to their interests, such as in the case of a stock dividend or stock split, will result in dilution to each shareholder by reducing his, her or its percentage ownership of the total outstanding shares. Moreover, if we issue options or warrants to purchase our common stock in the future and those options or warrants are exercised you may experience further dilution. Holders of shares of our common stock have no preemptive rights that entitle them to purchase their pro rata share of any offering of shares of any class or series.

Table of Contents

We have broad discretion in the use of our cash and cash equivalents, and, despite our efforts, we may use them in a manner that does not increase the value of our shareholders’ investment.

We have broad discretion in the use of our cash and cash equivalents, and investors must rely on the judgment of our management regarding the use of our cash and cash equivalents. Our management may not use cash and cash equivalents in ways that ultimately increase the value of our common stock. Our failure to use our cash and cash equivalents effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, cause the price of our common stock to decline and delay the commercialization of our products. We may invest our cash and cash equivalents in short-term or long-term, investment-grade, interest-bearing securities. These investments may not yield favorable returns. If we do not invest or apply our cash and cash equivalents in ways that enhance shareholder value, we may fail to achieve expected financial results, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be our shareholders’ sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our capital stock will be our shareholders’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

​

Table of Contents

the pleadings relating to the Orange Book-listed patents, the District Court of Massachusetts ordered judgment in our favor on those three patents, and dismissed the claims asserting infringement of those patents with prejudice. Upon dismissal of those claims, the 30-month stay of FDA approval was lifted. As a result, we were able to obtain final approval for Xtampza ER and launch the product commercially.

In November 2015, Purdue filed a follow-on suit asserting infringement of another patent, Patent No. 9,073,933, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. In June 2016, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another non-Orange Book listed patent, Patent No. 9,155,717. In April 2017, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another patent, Patent No. 9,522,919, which was late-listed in the Orange Book and therefore could not trigger any stay of FDA approval. Then, in September 2017, Purdue filed another follow-on suit asserting infringement of another non-Orange Book listed patent, Patent No. 9,693,961.

​

On March 13, 2018, we filed a Petition for Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) of the ʼ961 patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PGR argues that the ʼ961 patent is invalid for lack of a written description, for lack of enablement, for indefiniteness, and as being anticipated by prior art. Purdue filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Response on July 10, 2018. The PTAB entered an order to institute post-grant review of all claims of the ’961 patent on October 4, 2018, upon a finding that it is more likely than not that the claims of the ʼ961 patent are unpatentable. Purdue filed its Patent Owner Response on January 30, 2019. We filed our reply on April 12, 2019, and Purdue filed a sur-reply on May 10, 2019. The PTAB held oral argument on the proceedings on July 10, 2019 and was scheduled to issue a decision on the patentability of the ʼ961 patent by no later than October 4, 2019. On September 15, 2019, Purdue commenced a voluntary case under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 24, 2019, Purdue gave the PTAB notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of the PGR proceedings. On October 2, 2019, the PTAB extended the one-year period for issuing its decision by up to six months.

​

In October 2017, and in response to the filing of our Supplemental NDA (“sNDA”) seeking to update the drug abuse and dependence section of the Xtampza ER label, Purdue filed another suit asserting infringement of the ʼ933 and ʼ919 patents. We filed a motion to dismiss that action, and the Court granted our motion on January 16, 2018.

The suits that remain pending have been consolidated by the District of Massachusetts. The Court issued an order on September 28, 2018 in which it granted in part a motion for summary judgment that we filed, in which the Court ruled that the Xtampza ER formulation does not infringe the ʼ497 and ʼ717 patents. As a result, only the ʼ933, the ʼ919, and the ʼ961 patents remain in dispute. On October 16, 2018, we filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court on the ‘961 patent pending the PGR. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief but has not quantified its alleged damages. Purdue has also requested a judgment of infringement, an adjustment of the effective date of FDA approval, and an injunction on the sale of our products accused of infringement. We have denied all claims and have requested a judgment that the remaining asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. We are also seeking a judgment that the case is exceptional and have requested an award of our attorneys’ fees for defending the case.

A claim construction hearing was held on June 1, 2017. On November 21, 2017, the Court issued its claim construction ruling, construing certain claims of the ʼ933, ʼ497, and ʼ717 patents. No trial date has been scheduled. On September 18, 2019, Purdue gave the Court notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of the proceedings. On September 20, the matter was stayed pending further order of the Court.

Once the stay is lifted, we plan to defend this case vigorously. At this stage, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any.

​

Nucynta Litigation

On February 7, 2018, Purdue filed a patent infringement suit against us in the District of Delaware. Specifically, Purdue argues that our sale of immediate-release and extended-release Nucynta infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,861,583, 9,867,784, and 9,872,836. Purdue has made a demand for monetary relief in its complaint but has not quantified its alleged damages.

​

On December 6, 2018, we filed an Amended 10, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for resolution of our affirmative defense of patent exhaustion and stayed the action, with the exception of briefing on and resolution of our

Table of Contents

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings related to patent exhaustion and any discovery related to that Motion. Also, on December 10, 2018 we filed a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that the Purdue’s claims were barred by the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Purdue filed its response on January 11, 2019, and we filed a reply on January 25, 2019. On June 18, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on our Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On June 19, 2019, the Court issued an order stating that “judgment in Collegium’s favor is warranted under the doctrine of patent exhaustion to the extent Collegium’s alleged infringing activities resulted from sales that fall within the scope of that covenant.” The Court explained, however, that based on the current record, it was not possible “to determine whether title of the Nucynta Products was transferred to Collegium” from sales authorized by Purdue’s covenant not to sue. The Court ordered discovery on this issue and the case remained “stayed with the exception of discovery and briefing on and resolution of our anticipated motion for summary judgment based on patent exhaustion.”

​

On September 19, 2019, Purdue gave the Court notice of its bankruptcy filing and sought the imposition of an automatic stay of the proceedings. The Nucynta litigation is subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.

​

Pending resolution of the bankruptcy action, we plan to defend this case vigorously. At this stage, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any.

Teva Litigation

Presently, we have seventeen patents listed in the FDA Orange Book as covering our abuse-deterrent product and methods of using it to treat patients: U.S. Patents Nos. 7,399,488; 7,771,707; 8,449,909; 8,557,291; 8,758,813; 8,840,928; 9,044,398; 9,248,195; 9,592,200; 9,682,075; 9,737,530, 9,763,883; 9,968,598; 10,004,729; 10,188,644; 10,525,052; and 10,525,053 (the “Orange Book Patents”).

Teva filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market generic extended-release oxycodone capsule products (the “proposed ANDA products”). Teva also filed certifications with the FDA that its proposed ANDA products will not infringe the Orange Book Patents and/or that the Orange Book Patents are invalid. Teva sent us a Notice Letter indicating that it had made such certification to the FDA.

​

On February 22, 2018—within the 45-day period that gives us a 30-month stay of FDA approval of Teva’s ANDA while the parties have an opportunity to litigate—we sued Teva in the District of Delaware on eleven of the twelve Orange Book Patents that were listed at that time. Teva responded to our complaint on May 14, 2018, denying infringement by Teva’s proposed ANDA products and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. We answered Teva’s counterclaims on June 4, 2018.

​

We listed two additional patents in the Orange Book in 2018 and Teva amended its ANDA to include certifications to the FDA of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to those patents. Teva notified us of its certification and we filed a second lawsuit in the District of Delaware, asserting those two patents, on November 30, 2018. Teva responded to our complaint on January 11, 2019 denying infringement by Teva’s proposed ANDA products, and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. We answered Teva’s counterclaims on February 1, 2019. The Court consolidated the second suit with the first suit, and thus both suits are proceeding on the same schedule.

​

The parties briefed claim construction and the Court heard argument on April 12, 2019. On September 11, 2019, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation construing two of the six terms or sets of terms that are in dispute. The remaining terms will be addressed in one or more forthcoming Report and Recommendations. Fact discovery was scheduled to close on September 20, 2019 and expert discovery was scheduled to close on January 24, 2020.

​

We listed an additional patent in the Orange Book in January 2019 and Teva amended its ANDA to include certifications to the FDA of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to that patent. Teva notified us of its certification and we filed a third lawsuit in the District of Delaware, asserting the additional Orange Book Patent, on May 9, 2019. Teva responded to our complaint on June 6, 2019, denying infringement by Teva’s proposed ANDA products, and asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent. We answered Teva’s counterclaims on June 27, 2019. The parties filed a proposed Scheduling Order, which the Court entered on September 4, 2019. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to that Order.

​

On September 20, 2019, the parties jointly agreed to stay both litigations, which the Court so ordered. Once the district

Table of Contents

court lifts the stay, we plan to continue pursuing this case vigorously.

​

We listed two additional patents in the Orange Book in January 2020, which brings the total number of Orange Book Patents for Xtampza ER to seventeen.

​

Opioid Litigation

​

On March 19, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by multiple local governments in the Circuit Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas, against us and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors alleging a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices. On January 29, 2019, we were dismissed from this litigation without prejudice.

​

On March 21, 2018, we, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, were named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky by a family practice clinic, on behalf of other similarly-situated healthcare providers. The action alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) relating to opioid marketing and distribution practices. On April 14, 2018, the lawsuit was conditionally transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the federal Prescription Opiate Multi District Litigation (the “MDL”) in the Southern District of Ohio. On April 10, 2018, the conditional transfer was finalized, and the lawsuit was docketed in the MDL on April 11, 2018. On May 4, 2018, we, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, were named in two lawsuits filed in the MDL by the Fiscal Court of Bourbon County, Kentucky and the Fiscal Court of Owen County, Kentucky, relating to opioid marketing and distribution practices. On July 11 and 12, 2018, we were named in four lawsuits filed in the MDL by a health system and various member hospitals. On September 26, 2018, we were named in two lawsuits filed in the MDL by the Fiscal Court of Lee County, Kentucky and the Fiscal Court of Wolfe County, Kentucky. On March 15, 2019, the plaintiffs in these MDL cases filed amended complaints which no longer name us as a defendant, effectively terminating these lawsuits as to us. 

​

On September 6, 2019, Triad Health Systems filed a class action lawsuit in the MDL on behalf of itself and similarly situated health care systems, generally alleging negligence, fraud, and violations of the RICO Act relating to opioid marketing and distribution practices, naming us and other pharmaceutical distributors and manufacturers. On October 18, 2019, three counties in Kentucky filed lawsuits in the MDL naming us: the Fiscal Court of Casey County Kentucky; the Fiscal Court of Gallatin County Kentucky; and the Fiscal Court of Lewis County Kentucky. These three lawsuits generally allege negligence, fraud, and violations of the RICO Act relating to opioid marketing and distribution practices. We were dismissed from these four lawsuits on November 6, 2019.

​

On January 11, 2019, the City of Portsmouth filed a lawsuit in Virginia Circuit Court against us and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit alleges a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of state consumer protection laws. On October 3, 2019, the City of Portsmouth case was transferred to the MDL.

​

On March 15, 2019, we were named in a lawsuit in the MDL by the City of Paterson, New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges violations of fraud, public nuisance, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of state consumer protection laws, and seeks, generally, penalties and/or injunctive relief. In April 2019, the City of Norwich, Connecticut and the Town of Enfield, Connecticut filed lawsuits that name us in Connecticut Superior Court. The lawsuits allege violations of fraud, public nuisance, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of state consumer protection laws. On June 28, 2019, both cases were transferred to the MDL.

​

On June 14, 2019, the City of Trenton filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court against us and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit alleges a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of state consumer protection laws and the New Jersey Drug Dealer Liability Act. On August 23, 2019, the case was removed to the District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff filed an opposition to coordination and requested remand, but on December 18, 2019, the case was transferred to the MDL. Each of the lawsuits in the MDL naming us seeks, generally, penalties and injunctive relief. None of the lawsuits naming us are designated as representative cases in the MDL, and therefore, are effectively currently stayed.

​

On May 29, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by Bucks County, Pennsylvania against us and other pharmaceutical

Table of Contents

manufacturers and on June 12, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by Clinton County, Pennsylvania, against us and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. On June 6, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by Mercer County, Pennsylvania, against the us and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. These lawsuits allege claims related to opioid marketing and distribution, including negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, public nuisance, and violations of state consumer protections laws. These cases have been consolidated for discovery purposes in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas as part of a consolidated proceeding of similar lawsuits brought by numerous Pennsylvania counties against other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. In March 2019, three additional cases were filed in Pennsylvania by two payor groups and Warminster Township. We have been dismissed from both of the payor group cases. In July 2019, we learned of additional lawsuits alleging similar claims which were filed by Warrington Township in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, and filed by the City of Lock Haven in the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas. The City of Lock Haven and the Warrington Township cases have been coordinated into the consolidated proceeding before the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. None of these cases have been designated a Track One case in which discovery would commence, and therefore are effectively stayed at present.

​

On July 30, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by the City of Worcester, Massachusetts against us and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The action alleges a variety of claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violations of Mass Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Section 11, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. In February 2019, the City of Worcester case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court. Additional lawsuits brought by the following cities and counties Massachusetts were filed between October 2018 and April 2019: City of Salem, City of Framingham, Town of Lynnfield, City of Springfield, City of Haverhill, City of Gloucester, Town of Canton, Town of Wakefield, City of Chicopee; Town of Natick; City of Cambridge, and Town of Randolph. Each of these additional lawsuits has been coordinated before the Business Litigation Session. The case brought by the City of Springfield was selected to advance for the purpose of motion practice, and defendant’s motions to dismiss were denied on January 3, 2020. There is currently no schedule for the next stage of the proceedings.

​

We dispute the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend these actions. At this stage, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any.

​

Opioid-Related Request and Subpoenas

We, like a number of other pharmaceutical companies, have received subpoenas or civil investigative demands related to opioid sales and marketing. We have received such subpoenas or civil investigative demands from the Offices of the Attorney General of each of Washington, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maryland. We are currently cooperating with each of the foregoing states in their respective investigations.

​

Table of Contents

on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph shows a comparison from May 7, 2015, the date on which our common stock first began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, of the total cumulative shareholder return on an assumed investment of $100.00 in cash in our common stock as compared to the same investment in the NASDAQ Composite Index and the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, all through December 31, 2019. Such returns are based on historical results and are not intended to suggest future performance. Data for the NASDAQ Composite Index and NASDAQ Biotechnology Index assume reinvestment of dividends, however no dividends have been declared on our common stock to date.

​

​

​

​

The performance graph and related information shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

There were no unregistered sales of equity securities during the period covered by this Form 10-K.

​

Table of Contents

(1) All of the shares were transferred to us from employees in satisfaction of minimum tax withholding obligations associated with the vesting of restricted stock units during the period.

Table of Contents

​

​

Table of Contents

Outlook

We expect to continue to incur significant commercialization expenses related to marketing, manufacturing, distribution, selling and reimbursement activities. We are promoting Xtampza ER to approximately 11,000 health care professionals who write approximately 65% of the branded extended-release oral opioid prescriptions in the United States with a sales team of approximately 150 sales representatives and managers. We are promoting the Nucynta Products to the same health care professionals to whom we promote Xtampza ER, leveraging our existing sales organization. We have historically paid royalty to Assertio on all revenues from the sale of Nucynta Products based on certain net sales thresholds.

​

We have never been profitable and have incurred net losses in each year since inception. We incurred net losses of $22.7 million, $39.1 million and $74.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $359.9 million. Substantially all of our net losses resulted from costs incurred in connection with selling, general and administrative costs associated with our operations and research and development programs.

We believe that our cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2019 together with expected cash inflows from the commercialization of our products, will enable us to fund our operating expenses, debt service and capital expenditure requirements under our current business plan for the foreseeable future.

​

Financial Operations Overview

Product Revenues

Product revenue through the year ended December 31, 2019 has been generated from product sales of Xtampza ER and the Nucynta Products. In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, product sales are recorded net of a provision for estimated chargebacks, rebates, sales incentives and allowances, distribution service fees, and returns upon delivery of products to customers.

Cost of Product Revenues

Cost of product revenues include amortization of the intangible asset acquired in connection with the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement (“Nucynta Intangible Asset”), royalty expense, the cost of active pharmaceutical ingredient, the cost of producing finished goods that correspond with revenue for the reporting period, as well as certain period costs related to freight, packaging, stability and quality testing. Please refer to Note 4, License Agreements, and Note 9, Intangible Assets, for further detail around the Nucynta Intangible Asset and royalty expense.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist of development costs associated with our products, product platform technology and development of our product candidates. These costs are expensed as incurred and include:

​

We cannot determine with certainty the timing of initiation, the duration or the completion costs of future preclinical studies and clinical trials. At this time, due to the inherently unpredictable nature of preclinical and clinical development, we are unable to estimate with any certainty the costs we will incur and the timelines required for our products. Clinical and preclinical development timelines, the probability of success and development costs can differ materially from expectations. In addition, we cannot forecast which products may be subject to future collaborations, when such arrangements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements.

Table of Contents

Our research and development has been focused primarily on developing our DETERx platform technology and Xtampza ER. Accordingly, historically we have not tracked research and development costs by project. In addition, we use our employee and infrastructure resources across multiple research and development projects.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and employee-related costs, including stock-based compensation and travel expenses for our employees in executive, finance, sales and marketing and administrative functions. Other selling, general and administrative expenses include facility-related costs and professional fees for directors, accounting and legal services, and expenses associated with obtaining and maintaining patents. As we continue to invest in the commercialization of our products, we expect our selling, general and administrative expenses to be substantial for the foreseeable future.

Interest Expense

​

Interest expense consists primarily of non-cash interest costs related to our Nucynta Commercialization Agreement and cash interest costs from the Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”).

​

Interest Income

​

Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash and cash equivalents.

​

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our consolidated financial statements. Estimates include revenue recognition, including the estimates of product returns, units prescribed, discounts and allowances related to commercial sales of our products, estimates utilized in the valuation of inventory, estimates of useful lives with respect to intangible assets, accounting for stock-based compensation, contingencies, intangible assets and tax valuation reserves. We base our estimates and assumptions on historical experience when available and on various factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this on Form 10-K, we believe the following accounting policies to be most critical to the significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Revenue Recognition

Our accounting policy for revenue recognition will have a substantial impact on reported results and relies on certain estimates. Estimates are based on historical experience, current conditions and various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets, liabilities and equity and the amounts of revenues and expenses. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Product Revenue

​

Our only source of revenue to date has been generated by sales of our products, which are primarily sold to distributors (“customers”), which in turn sell the product to pharmacies for the treatment of patients (“end users”). For the year ended December 31, 2019, in accordance with ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC 606”), revenue for product sales is recognized when a customer obtains control of promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration which the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. This generally

Table of Contents

occurs upon delivery; when estimated provisions for chargebacks, rebates, sales incentives and allowances, distribution service fees, and returns are reasonably determinable. Therefore, product sales are recorded upon delivery net of estimated chargebacks, rebates, sales incentives and allowances, distribution service fees, as well as estimated product returns.

​

Prior to the adoption of ASC 606 on January 1, 2018, we recognized revenue in accordance with ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition (“legacy GAAP”), or when there was persuasive evidence of an arrangement; when title and risk of loss had passed to the customer; when estimated provisions for chargebacks, rebates, sales incentives and allowances, distribution service fees, and returns were reasonably determinable; and when collectability was reasonably assured. The satisfaction of these criteria generally occurred upon delivery of products to customers, or the sell-in method of revenue recognition under legacy GAAP. In addition, we recognized the transaction price net of estimated chargebacks, rebates, sales incentives and allowance. Given that timing of recognition for product sales under legacy GAAP and ASC 606 occurred on the delivery of products to customers and there were no differences in transaction price under legacy GAAP and ASC 606, the adoption of Topic 606 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, equity or cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2018.

​

Prior to the third quarter of 2017, we recognized revenue when products were dispensed to end users, or the sell-through method of revenue recognition under legacy GAAP, as we did not have sufficient experience with product sales to estimate returns at the time product was sold to customers. In the third quarter of 2017, we transitioned to the sell-in method of revenue recognition and recorded a cumulative one-time $4.4 million increase to revenues.

​

Sales Deductions

​

Sales deductions consist primarily of provisions for (1) rebates and incentives, including managed care rebates, government rebates, co-pay program incentives, and sales incentives and allowances; (2) product returns, including return estimates for both the Nucynta Products and Xtampza ER; and (3) trade allowances and chargebacks, including fees for distribution service fees, prompt pay discounts, and chargebacks. We estimate the amount of variable consideration that should be included in revenue under the expected value method for all sales deductions other than trade allowances, which are estimated under the most likely amount method. These provisions reflect our best estimates of the amount of revenue to which we are entitled based on the terms of our contracts.

​

Provisions for rebates and incentives are based on the estimated amount of rebates and incentives to be claimed on the related sales from the period. As our rebates and incentives are based on products dispensed to patients, we are required to estimate the expected value of claims at the time of product delivery to distributors. Given that distributors sell the product to pharmacies, which in turn dispense the product to patients, claims can be submitted significantly after the related sales are recognized. Our estimates of these claims are based on the historical experience of existing or similar programs, including current contractual and statutory requirements, specific known market events and trends, industry data, and estimated distribution channel inventory levels. Accruals and related reserves required for rebates and incentives are adjusted as new information becomes available, including actual claims. If actual results vary, we may need to adjust these estimates, which could have an effect on earnings in the period of the adjustment.

​

Provisions for product returns are based on product-level historical trends, as well as relevant market events and other factors. For the Nucynta Products, estimates of product returns are primarily based on historical trends as the Nucynta Products have been commercially sold for a number of years. For Xtampza ER, since the product has only been commercially sold since June 2016, estimates of product returns are based on a combination of historical returns processed to date, taking into consideration the expiration date of product upon delivery to customers, as well as forecasted customer buying patterns, shipment and prescription trends, channel inventory levels, and other specifically known market events and trends.

​

Provisions for trade allowances and chargebacks are primarily based on customer-level contractual terms. Accruals and related reserves are adjusted as new information becomes available, which generally consists of actual trade allowances and chargebacks processed relating to sales recognized in the period.

​

Intangible Assets

We record the fair value of finite-lived intangible assets as of the transaction date. Intangible assets are then amortized over their estimated useful lives using either the straight-line method, or if reliably determinable, based on the pattern in

Table of Contents

which the economic benefit of the asset is expected to be utilized. We test intangible assets for potential impairment whenever triggering events or circumstances present an indication of impairment. If the sum of expected undiscounted future cash flows of the intangible assets is less than the carrying amount of such assets, the intangible assets would be written down to the estimated fair value, calculated based on the present value of expected future cash flows.

As of December 31, 2019, our only intangible asset is related to the Nucynta Intangible Asset.

Table of Contents

​

Interest expense was $909,000 for 2019, compared to $20.1 million for 2018. The decrease was primarily due to $19.3 million of interest expense recognized in 2018 associated with the minimum royalty payments related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement. In November 2018, the minimum royalty payments were eliminated upon the execution of the Third Amendment to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement.

​

Interest income was $1.9 million for 2019, compared to $1.7 million for 2018. The $248,000 increase was primarily due to higher interest rates earned on money market funds.

​

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2018 and 2017

Product revenues, net were $280.4 million for 2018, compared to $28.5 million for the year ended December 2017 (“2017”). The $251.9 million increase was primarily related to sales of the Nucynta Products pursuant to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement consummated in January 2018. For 2018, the Nucynta Products product revenues, net were $211.0 million. In addition, Xtampza ER product revenues, net were $69.4 million for 2018, which represents a $40.9 million increase compared 2017. The increase in Xtampza ER product revenues, net was primarily due to an increase in sales volume due to increasing demand.

Cost of product revenues was $165.7 million for 2018, compared to $2.6 million for 2017. The $163.1 million increase was primarily related to $109.8 million of amortization expenses associated with the intangible asset related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement. The remaining increase was primarily related to volume of product sales in 2018.

Research and development expenses were $8.7 million for 2018, compared to $8.6 million for 2017. The $89,000 increase was primarily related to an increase in salaries, wages and benefits of $1.0 million, primarily due to increases in employee headcount and stock-based compensation expense. This was partially offset by a $670,000 decrease in development manufacturing expenses following the termination of the Onsolis License and Development Agreement in 2017.

​

Selling, general and administrative expenses were $126.8 million for 2018, compared to $92.8 million for 2017. The $34.0 million increase was primarily related to:

​

Interest expense was $20.1 million for 2018. This includes $19.3 million of non-cash interest expense associated with the minimum royalty payments related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, which was entered into during 2018, and interest expense on our term loan of $849,000.

Interest income was $1.7 million for 2018, compared to $582,000 for 2017. The $1.1 million increase was primarily due to higher interest rates on money market funds.

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Financing Relating to the Nucynta Acquisition

2020 Term Loan

On February 6, 2020, in connection with the execution of the Nucynta Purchase Agreement, we, together with our subsidiary, Collegium Securities Corporation, entered into a Loan Agreement with BioPharma Credit PLC, as collateral agent and lender; and BioPharma Credit Investments V (Master) LP, as lender (the “2020 Loan Agreement”). The 2020 Loan Agreement provides for a $200.0 million secured term loan (the “2020 Term Loan”), the proceeds of which were used to finance a portion of the purchase price paid pursuant to the Nucynta Purchase Agreement.

The 2020 Term Loan will mature on the 48-month anniversary of the closing of the Nucynta Acquisition, and is guaranteed by our material domestic subsidiaries and is also secured by substantially all of our material domestic assets. The 2020 Term Loan will bear interest at a rate based upon LIBOR (subject to a LIBOR floor of 2.0%), plus a margin of 7.5% per annum. We are required to repay the 2020 Term Loan by making equal quarterly payments.

The 2020 Loan Agreement contains certain covenants and obligations of the parties, including, without limitation, covenants that require us to maintain $200.0 million in annual net sales and covenants that limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness or liens, make acquisitions or other investments or dispose of assets outside the ordinary course of business. Failure to comply with these covenants would constitute an event of default under the 2020 Loan Agreement, notwithstanding our ability to meet its debt service obligations. The 2020 Loan Agreement also includes various customary remedies for the lenders following an event of default, including the acceleration of repayment of outstanding amounts under the 2020 Loan Agreement and execution upon the collateral securing obligations under the 2020 Loan Agreement.

2026 Convertible Notes

On February 13, 2020, we issued 2.625% convertible senior notes due 2026 (the “convertible notes”), in the aggregate principal amount of $143.8 million, in a public offering registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The convertible notes are senior, unsecured obligations and will accrue interest at a rate of 2.625% per annum, payable semi-annually in arrears on February 15 and August 15 of each year, beginning on August 15, 2020. The notes will mature on February 15, 2026, unless earlier repurchased, redeemed or converted. Before August 15, 2025, noteholders will have the right to convert their notes only upon the occurrence of certain events. From and after August 15, 2025, noteholders may convert their notes at any time at their election until the close of business on the scheduled trading day immediately before the maturity date. We will settle conversions by paying or delivering, as applicable, cash, shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock, at our election. The initial conversion rate is 34.2618 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes, which represents an initial conversion price of approximately $29.19 per share of common stock. The initial conversion price represents a premium of approximately 35% over the last reported sale of $21.62 per share of our common stock on February 10, 2020. The conversion rate and conversion price will be subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain events.

​

​

Table of Contents

Cash flows

​

Operating activities. Cash provided by operating activities was $27.8 million in 2019, compared to cash provided by operating activities of $169.4 million in 2018. The $141.6 million decrease was primarily due to lower non-cash adjustments related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, as in 2018 we were required to make guaranteed minimum royalty payments which were classified as outflows from financing activities, while in 2019 royalty payments were conditional on net sales and therefore classified as outflows from operating activities. Further, there was lower amortization from the Nucynta Intangible Asset in 2019 compared to 2018 as a result of the Third Amendment to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement and non-cash interest was reduced to zero. In addition, cash provided by operating activities decreased due to changes in the working capital accounts, partially offset by a benefit from the change in net loss.

Cash provided by operating activities was $169.4 million in 2018, compared to cash used by operating activities of $67.0 million in 2017. The $236.4 million increase in cash provided by operating activities was primarily due to the non-cash adjustments related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement. While payments made for guaranteed minimum royalties are classified as financing activities, the amortization from the Nucynta Intangible Asset of $109.8 million and the non-cash interest expense related to the guaranteed minimum royalties of $19.3 million are classified as adjustments to cash provided by operating activities. In addition, cash provided by operating activities increased due to a benefit from changes in the working capital accounts and due to a benefit from the change in net loss. The benefit from the change in the working capital accounts was primarily driven by a benefit from accrued rebates, returns and discounts of $106.6 million, partially offset by the change in accounts receivable $68.2 million. These changes are directly related to the significant increase in product revenues in 2018, as the provisions for rebates, returns and discounts are recognized in the same period in which product is delivered to wholesalers, while payment for rebates, returns and discounts is generally based on prescriptions and actual returned product.

Investing activities. Cash used in investing activities was $6.4 million in 2019 and $24.4 million in 2018. The $18.0 million decrease in cash used in investing activities was primarily related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement, as in 2018 we made a one-time upfront payment of $18.9 million to Assertio to consummate the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement. This decrease was offset by an increase of $961,000 paid for purchases of property, plant, and equipment primarily for the dedicated production suite at our contract manufacturing organization in 2019.

Cash used in investing activities was $24.4 million in 2018 and $1.0 million in the year ended 2017. The increase in cash used in investing activities was primarily due to a payment of $18.9 million to Assertio upon closing of the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement and $5.5 million paid for purchases of property, plant, and equipment for our corporate headquarters and dedicated production suite at our contract manufacturing organization.

Financing activities. Cash provided by financing activities was $2.0 million in 2019, compared to cash used in financing activities of $117.2 million in 2018. The $119.2 million increase in cash provided by financing activities was primarily related to the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement. In 2018 we were required to make guaranteed minimum royalty payments which were classified as outflows from financing activities, while in 2019, royalty payments were conditional on net sales and therefore classified as outflows from operating activities. The guaranteed minimum royalty payments paid in 2018 were partially offset by term loan proceeds of $10.0 million. The remaining change is primarily related to changes in proceeds from the issuance of shares under our employee stock purchase plan and proceeds from exercises of stock options, offset by payments made for employee restricted stock tax withholdings.

Table of Contents

Cash used in financing activities was $117.2 million in 2018, compared to cash provided by financing activities of $33.5 million in 2017. The increase in cash used by financing activities was primarily due to an increase in cash used in the repayment of minimum royalty payments associated with the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement for the Nucynta Products of $132.0 million, offset by proceeds received from our term loan of $10.0 million, and proceeds received from the exercise of stock options of $4.3 million. The remaining change is primarily due to higher payments made for employee restricted stock tax withholdings.

Funding requirements

We believe that our cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2019 together with expected cash inflows from the commercialization of our products, will enable us to fund our operating expenses, debt service and capital expenditure requirements under our current business plan for the foreseeable future. However, we are subject to all the risks common to the commercialization and development of new pharmaceutical products, and we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business.

​

Certain economic or strategic considerations may cause us to seek additional cash through private or public debt or equity offerings. Such funds may not be available when needed, or, we may not be able to obtain funding on favorable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of one or more of our products. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of additional debt or equity securities, it could result in dilution to our existing shareholders, increased fixed payment obligations and the existence of securities with rights that may be senior to those of our common stock. If we incur indebtedness, we could become subject to covenants that would restrict our operations and potentially impair our competitiveness, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Any of these events could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

​

Our forecast that our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement and involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. The amount and timing of future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

​

​

If we cannot capitalize on our business opportunities because we lack sufficient capital, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

​

Table of Contents

​

​

We also have employment agreements with executive officers that would require us to make severance payments to them if we terminate their employment without cause or the executives resign for good cause. These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of various future events, and the amounts payable under these provisions depend upon the level of compensation at the time of termination of employment, are therefore not calculable at this time, and, as a result, we have not included any such amounts in the table above.

​

Nucynta Commercialization Agreement

As more fully described in Note 4, License Agreements, and Note 9, Intangible Assets, to the consolidated financial statements in January 2018, we closed the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement with Assertio, which initially required us to make annual minimum royalty payments of $537.0 million, which consisted of scheduled payments of $132.0 million in 2018, $135.0 million in 2019, $135.0 million in 2020, and $135.0 million in 2021. The guaranteed minimum royalty payments were a contractual obligation incurred at the closing of the transaction and were included as a component of the accumulated cost of the acquired intangible asset. As a result, we included the present value of the guaranteed minimum royalty payments as a component of the Nucynta Intangible Asset recognized upon closing and recorded a corresponding asset acquisition obligation of $482.3 million.

In November 2018, we entered into an amendment to the Commercialization Agreement to adjust the royalty structure, as well as other changes more fully described in Note 4, License Agreements, and Note 9, Intangible Assets, to the consolidated financial statements. The amendment eliminated the guaranteed minimum royalty payments in years 2019, 2020, and 2021, and instead added a conditional obligation to make royalty payments based on net sales for years 2019, 2020, and 2021. As such, we remeasured the guaranteed minimum royalty obligation as of the amendment date. This remeasurement resulted in a $369.6 million decrease to the asset acquisition obligation and a corresponding reduction to the Nucynta Intangible Asset.

​

In the year ended December 31, 2018, we paid the $132.0 million of guaranteed minimum royalty payments owed for 2018 and classified such payments as financing outflows in our statement of cash flows. Cost of product revenues recognized in the year ended December 31, 2018 included $109.8 million of amortization expense related to the Nucynta Intangible Asset. In addition, in the year ended December 31, 2018, we recognized $19.3 million of non-cash interest expense related to the guaranteed minimum royalty payments.

In the year ended December 31, 2019, royalties paid under the Commercialization Agreement were classified as operating outflows in our statement of cash flows as such payments were conditional upon net sales. We also recognized such royalties as a component of costs of product revenues in our statement of operations, in addition to $14.8 million of ongoing amortization expense related to the remeasured Nucynta Intangible Asset. We expect amortization expense for the Nucynta Intangible Asset for the years ended December 31, 2020, and 2021 to be $14.8 million, and $14.8 million, respectively.

​

On February 13, 2020, we closed the Nucynta Acquisition in accordance with the Nucynta Purchase Agreement. Upon the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Nucynta Purchase Agreement, the Commercialization Agreement terminated with the exception of certain provisions thereof which survive pursuant to the terms of the Nucynta Purchase Agreement, and our payment obligations to Assertio thereunder ceased.

Table of Contents

​

Nucynta Purchase Agreement

​

On February 6, 2020, we entered into the Nucynta Purchase Agreement with Assertio, pursuant to which we agreed to acquire from Assertio certain assets related to the Nucynta franchise for an aggregate purchase price of $375.0 million (the “Purchase Price”), subject to certain closing and post-closing adjustments as described in the Nucynta Purchase Agreement. In connection with the Nucynta Acquisition, we also agreed to assume certain contracts, liabilities and obligations related to the Nucynta Products.

​

From and after the closing of the Nucynta Purchase Agreement, we will pay royalties directly to Grünenthal GmbH at a rate of 14% of net sales of the Products; such royalty payment obligation will replace our previous obligation to pay a royalty rate of 14% of net sales of the Nucynta Products to Grünenthal, subject to a guaranteed royalty of $34.0 million when net sales are between $180.0 million and $243.0 million.

​

The Nucynta Purchase Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and covenants, and indemnification provisions subject to specified limitations. We closed the transactions contemplated by the Nucynta Purchase Agreement on February 13, 2020.

​

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

​

To supplement our financial results presented on a GAAP basis, we have included information about non-GAAP adjusted income/loss. We internally use this non-GAAP financial measure to understand, manage and evaluate the Company as we believe it represents the performance of our core business. Because this non-GAAP financial measure is an important internal measure for the Company, we believe that the presentation of the non-GAAP financial measure provides analysts, investors and lenders insight into management’s view and assessment of the Company’s ongoing operating performance. In addition, we believe that the presentation of this non-GAAP financial measure, when viewed with our results under GAAP and the accompanying reconciliation, provides supplementary information that may be useful to analysts, investors, lenders, and other third parties in assessing the Company’s performance and results from period to period. We report this non-GAAP financial measure in order to portray the results of our major operations – commercializing innovative, differentiated products for people suffering from pain – prior to considering certain income statement elements. This non-GAAP financial measure should be considered in addition to, and not a substitute for, or superior to, net income or other financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. The Non-GAAP financial measure is not based on any standardized methodology prescribed by GAAP and represents GAAP net income/loss adjusted to exclude stock-based compensation expense, amortization expense for the Nucynta intangible asset, non-cash interest expense recognized on the Nucynta minimum royalty payments, and minimum royalty payments due and payable in connection with the Nucynta Commercialization Agreement. Any non-GAAP financial measures used by us may be calculated differently from, and therefore may not be comparable to, a non-GAAP measure used by other companies.

​