For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017


For the Transition Period from              to            

Commission File Number:  001-35405



(Exact name of registrant specified in its charter)





f(State or Other Jurisdiction of

Incorporation or Organization)

(Primary Standard Industrial

Classification Code Number)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

300 George Street, Suite 301

New Haven, CT 06511

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(312) 767-0291

(Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:


Title of Each Class


Name of Exchange on which Registered


Common Stock, $0.001 Par Value

Nasdaq Global Market

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 Exchange 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 and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes     No  

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the 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, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):


Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer





Non-accelerated filer

  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company



Emerging growth company

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, as of June 30, 2017, was approximately $241.5 million. Such aggregate market value was computed by reference to the closing price of the common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Market on June 30, 2017. For purposes of making this calculation only, the registrant has defined affiliates as including only directors and executive officers and shareholders holding greater than 10% of the voting stock of the registrant as of June 30, 2017.

As of March 2, 2018, there were 31,345,654 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding.



Certain portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated herein by reference, as indicated in Part III.




















Item 1.








Item 1A.


Risk Factors






Item 1B.


Unresolved Staff Comments






Item 2.








Item 3.


Legal Proceedings






Item 4.


Mine Safety Disclosures














Item 5.


Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities






Item 6.


Selected Financial Data






Item 7.


Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation






Item 7A.


Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk






Item 8.


Financial Statements and Supplementary Data






Item 9.


Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure






Item 9A.


Controls and Procedures






Item 9B.


Other Information














Item 10.


Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance






Item 11.


Executive Compensation






Item 12.


Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters






Item 13.


Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence






Item 14.


Principal Accounting Fees and Services














Item 15.


Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules




Financial Statements







As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “Melinta,” “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us” may, depending on the context, refer to Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., to one or more of its consolidated subsidiary companies, or to all of them taken as a whole.

Various statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “annual report” or “report”) that express a belief, expectation, or intention, or that are not statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Forward-looking statements may include statements about our:



business strategy;



pending or future acquisitions and future capital expenditures;



ability to obtain permits and governmental approvals;



timing of product introductions, sales and marketing plans, and commercialization activities;



financial plans or ability to raise additional debt or equity;



future operating results; and



plans, objectives, expectations and intentions.

All of these types of statements, other than statements of historical fact included in this annual report, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements may be found in the “Business,” “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and other sections of this annual report. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “expect,” “plan,” “project,” “budget,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “pursue,” “target,” “seek,” “objective,” “continue,” “will be,” “will benefit,” or “will continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology.

The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are largely based on our expectations, which reflect estimates and assumptions made by our management. These estimates and assumptions reflect our best judgment based on currently known market conditions and other factors, which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. Although we believe such estimates and assumptions to be reasonable, they are inherently uncertain and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are beyond our control. In addition, our management’s assumptions about future events may prove to be inaccurate. Our management cautions all readers that the forward-looking statements contained in this annual report are not guarantees of future performance, and we cannot assure any reader that such statements will be realized or the forward-looking events and circumstances will occur. Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements due to the many factors including those described in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this annual report. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this annual report. We do not intend to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. These cautionary statements qualify all forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf.





Item 1. Business


We are a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing differentiated anti-infectives for the hospital and select non-hospital, or community, settings that address the need for effective treatments for infections due to resistant gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria. We currently market four antibiotics to treat a variety of infections caused by these resistant bacteria.

Melinta was formed as a private company in October 2000, and operated using funds from licensing and collaboration agreements, private equity placements and debt until 2017. We received approval for our first drug, Baxdela(delafloxacin), in June 2017. We began sales of Baxdela in January 2018. On November 3, 2017, we completed a reverse merger with Cempra, Inc., as a result of which the registrant Cempra, Inc. was re-named Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. and we became a publicly-traded company. See “Corporate History and information” below for further information.

We operate and manage our business as one operating segment and all of our operations are in North America. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

Acquisition of the Infectious Disease Businesses of The Medicines Company

On January 5, 2018, we acquired the Infectious Disease Businesses (“IDB”) from The Medicines Company (“Medicines”), including the capital stock of certain subsidiaries of Medicines and certain assets related to its infectious disease business (the “IDB Transaction”), including the pharmaceutical products containing (i) meropenem and vaborbactam as the active pharmaceutical ingredient and distributed under the brand name Vabomere  (“Vabomere”), (ii) oritavancin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient and distributed under the brand name Orbactiv® (“Orbactiv”) and (iii) minocycline as the active pharmaceutical ingredient and distributed under the brand name Minocin® for Injection (“Minocin”) and line extensions of such products (the “Products” and together with Baxdela, the “Product Portfolio”). In addition to the Products acquired in the IDB Transaction, we added approximately 135 individuals from Medicines to our team. The new team members bring with them significant experience specific to infectious diseases and better position Melinta to effectively execute our commercial and other activities.

Market Opportunity

The relentless evolution of bacterial antibiotic resistance, coupled with the dearth of effective new antibiotics, has created an urgent public health threat. The integration of the acquired Products within our existing portfolio further strengthens our ability to serve the needs of providers treating patients with serious bacterial infections across the healthcare delivery continuum. Our combined Product Portfolio, pipeline, resources and people has created a standalone entity with the ability to help address the significant need for new antibiotics to treat serious infections across multiple healthcare channels, while exercising a firm commitment to antibiotic stewardship.

The combined Product Portfolio supports our multi-channel strategy of delivering antibiotics for serious gram-positive and gram-negative infections due to resistant bacteria within the hospital, emergency department, and community settings. We believe that each product has distinct value in the antibiotic marketplace, and that we are uniquely positioned to deliver this value:





Combined Antibiotic Portfolio

Melinta has a deep pipeline of commercial, clinical and preclinical antibiotic assets across multiple approved and potential indications, and has a platform for long-term, durable growth and a strategy to expand the anti-infective portfolio over time, providing the opportunity for multiple layers of revenue growth.




Our marketed products are expected to deliver a distinct value proposition across the antibiotic care continuum:



Baxdela (delafloxacin)

Baxdela is a commercial-stage asset that offers a new option for monotherapy treatment of adult patients with acute bacterial skin or skin structure infections (“ABSSSI”) in oral and intravenous (“IV”) formulations. Baxdela is a novel fluoroquinolone that exhibits activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens, is unique among quinolones in that it is effective against methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureaus (“MRSA”), and is available to initiate therapy on either the IV or oral formulation. In clinical trials, Baxdela demonstrated a differentiated safety and tolerability profile as compared to vancomycin plus aztreonam. On June 19, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved the use of Baxdela as a treatment of adult patients with ABSSSI. The commercial launch of Baxdela for the adult patient treatment of ABSSSI occurred in the first quarter of 2018.

The FDA also confirmed Baxdela’s status as a Qualified Infectious Disease Product (“QIDP”) under the provisions of the 2012 Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now Act (the “GAIN Act”), and extended by five years the five-year exclusivity granted to Baxdela as a new chemical entity (“NCE”), for a total of ten years in the United States. Consequently, and because we believe Baxdela has utility across many different infection types, we have commenced Phase 3 clinical development for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (“CABP”) and may pursue additional indications for Baxdela in the future. Baxdela has the potential to address a variety of bacterial infections in the United States. In addition, we have partnered with leading multinational pharmaceutical firms for distribution of Baxdela in markets outside the United States, including with Menarini IFR SrL for Europe and Asia-Pacific (excluding Japan) and with Eurofarma Laboratórios S.A. for Central and South America. We may obtain additional funds through the achievement of regulatory, commercial and sales-based milestones, as well as royalties on sales of Baxdela outside the United States.

We believe that the pricing strategy for Baxdela is supportive of ensuring appropriate clinical use. We have initially priced Baxdela at a Wholesale Average Cost of $265 per treatment day for the IV formulation and $135 per treatment day for the oral formulation. Based on research with hospital administrators, clinicians and payors, we believe we can support both appropriate stewardship and a compelling economic value.

Vabomere (meropenem and vaborbactam)

Vabomere is the combination of meropenem, the leading carbapenem used in treatment of gram-negative infections, and vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor that inhibits certain types of resistance mechanisms used by bacteria. Vabomere received FDA approval on August 29, 2017, for the treatment of patients 18 years of age and older with complicated urinary tract infections (“cUTI”), including pyelonephritis, caused by designated susceptible Enterobacteriaceae and became commercially available in the fourth quarter of 2017. Vabomere was specifically developed to address gram-negative bacteria that produce beta-



lactamase enzymes, particularly the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (“KPC”) enzyme. KPC-producing bacteria are responsible for a large majority of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the United States and are classified by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) to be an urgent antimicrobial resistance threat. With its approval, the FDA also confirmed that Vabomere is eligible for the five-year GAIN Act extension of exclusivity under the provisions of the GAIN Act, though the question of whether Vabomere would be eligible for a five-year NCE exclusivity or three-year exclusivity was referred to the Exclusivity Board of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (“CDER”). The new drug application (“NDA”) for Vabomere was based upon the TANGO-1 study, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of Vabomere versus piperacillin/tazobactam in cUTI and acute pyelonephritis due to susceptible Enterobacteriaceae. In the TANGO-1 study, 98.4% of patients on the Vabomere arm met the primary endpoint of clinical success at the end of IV treatment, compared to 94% of patients in the piperacillin/tazobactam arm. Patients in the Vabomere arm of the study had fewer discontinuations due to AEs as compared to the piperacillin/tazobactam arm (2.9% vs. 5.1%), and the type of AEs seen in the trial were similar to that of meropenem alone.

On July 25, 2017, Medicines announced positive results from a planned interim analysis of the TANGO-2 trial, a multi-center, randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial. The TANGO-2 trial compared Vabomere to best available therapy (“BAT”) in the treatment of infections caused by CRE and is the only trial that evaluated a monotherapy option in CRE. Randomization in the trial was stopped early, following a recommendation by the Drug Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”). The recommendation was based upon an interim analysis of 72 patients, including 43 with microbiologically evaluable CRE infections of blood, lung urinary tract and abdominal organs. The DSMB concluded that the benefit-risk ratio no longer supported randomization of patients to the BAT arm due to results seen in patients in the Vabomere arm. The data showed a higher cure rate at test of cure and end of therapy as well as lower all-cause mortality versus BAT across all infection types. In addition, Vabomere had a lower rate of drug-related AEs versus BAT (24% vs. 44%).

Vabomere is indicated for cUTI and we believe the profile represents a leading therapy for treatment of serious infections due to gram-negative bacteria, including KPC-mediated CRE, which is Vabomere’s focus:

Approved for cUTI

Key Focus for Vabomere –KPC-mediated CRE


We have continued the launch of Vabomere with a sales force that primarily interacts with infectious disease and critical care physicians, microbiologists and hospital pharmacists, including infectious disease clinical pharmacists. We are leveraging our presence in the hospital setting to promote Vabomere, as well as our other products. Additionally, we have a team of medical science liaisons across the United States to meet with and educate infectious disease and critical care key opinion leaders.

We believe Melinta is capable of distinguishing Vabomere’s economic value proposition through a pricing strategy that is in line with currently branded therapies used in the treatment of such serious gram-negative infections and designed to facilitate access within the hospital. Market research with hospital pharmacy directors has confirmed that Vabomere’s launch price of $990/day will allow access within the hospital while also capturing the incremental value the product has over currently available therapies. In addition, we believe the economic value proposition of Vabomere is expected to be demonstrated through health economic outcomes analyses and a budget impact model that show a lower cost per patient compared to best available therapies.


Orbactiv is a long-acting IV antibiotic of the lipoglycopeptide class that allows for single infusion for the treatment of adult patients with ABSSSIs caused or suspected to be caused by susceptible gram-positive bacteria, with no dose adjustment for mild/moderate renal or hepatic impairment or for age, weight, gender, or race. It provides an alternative solution to hospital admission or multiple days of therapy in outpatient setting. In contrast to the current standard of care (6 to 10 days of IV therapy), single-dose



ABSSSI therapy with Orbactiv alternative increases patient convenience, helps to ensure patient adherence with a single dose, and allows for treatment in alternative, lower cost care settings. We are leveraging our community-based sales force infrastructure to maximize Orbactiv’s potential.

Minocin for injection

Minocin is an IV antibiotic of the tetracycline class with broad-spectrum activity against gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. A new formulation was launched in 2015, which improved tolerability and convenience in administration, owing to a smaller required infusion volume. Minocin is one of the few agents approved for treatment of Acinetobacter spp. Acinetobacter infections are generally seen in the intensive care unit (“ICU”), particularly in mechanically ventilated and immunocompromised patients. We are leveraging our hospital-based sales force infrastructure to maximize Minocin’s potential.


Solithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that was acquired by Melinta in the merger with Cempra. Prior to the time of the merger, Cempra advanced solithromycin through Phase 3 studies for an indication in adults with CABP. After Cempra received a complete response letter (CRL) from the FDA in December 2016, Cempra worked with the FDA to determine a path forward, which included a pre-approval safety study that would include 7,200 subjects and a post-approval commitment to study an additional 3,600 subjects. Management estimated that the combined cost of the pre- and post-approval studies would be approximately $140.0 million. Given the significant cost of the trial, management determined that the trial would only be pursued if non-dilutive funding were available to fund the cost of the trial. After working unsuccessfully to identify non-dilutive funding, management has made the election to not pursue this study. We are also conducting a pediatric CABP trial, which is being funded by with the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”). A pediatric indication would only be pursued if an adult indication was likely. Melinta held a discussion with BARDA on March 15, 2018, and the parties jointly agreed to wind down this pediatric study.  

Solithromycin is also being studied by Toyama, our partner in Japan. Toyama has made significant progress to date across multiple clinical trials. We will continue to support Toyama’s efforts to commercialize solithromycin in Japan.

Fusidic Acid

Fusidic Acid was also a pipeline program acquired in the merger transaction with Cempra. Cempra completed one successful Phase 3 program for fusidic acid for ABSSSI. A second Phase 3 trial would be required to obtain approval for fusidic acid. We have no current plans to initiate the additional Phase 3 study that would be required.

Prior to the merger, Cempra had also initiated a Phase 2 program, studying fusidic acid as chronic suppressive treatment in refractory staphylococcal bone and joint infections.  In a single arm study of 30 patients, clinical success was seen in 60% of patients after six months of treatment. Investigators may elect to keep patients on treatment for up to two years. Fusidic acid has been well tolerated, but resistance developed in some patients with this long-term use.  Resistance development over long-term use is a known risk with extended use antibiotics. Given this finding, we do not intend to pursue further clinical development for fusidic acid in bone and joint infections.  

Key Business Strategies

We are focused on development and commercialization of new antibiotics that enable patients with serious, life-threatening bacterial infections to be successfully treated. We plan to carefully evaluate our capital allocation strategy to maximize shareholder value around the recent launches of Baxdela and Vabomere, and the marketing of Orbactiv and Minocin, while maintaining a capital efficient approach to investing in our development programs and other opportunities. The critical components of our business strategy are:



Commercialize Baxdela for ABSSSI in the United States. In the first quarter of 2018, we launched Baxdela in the United States with an efficient, targeted sales force consisting of approximately 50 sales territories, prioritizing high-value hospital accounts. In addition, sales representatives target other market channels, such as the emergency department and select community settings in an attempt to realize the full market potential of Baxdela.



Commercialize Vabomere for cUTI in the United States. We market Vabomere in the United States with an efficient, targeted sales force consisting of approximately 85 sales territories, prioritizing high-value hospital accounts, focusing on infectious disease and critical care physicians.



Optimize commercialization of Orbactiv and Minocin within the United States. We are leveraging our sales force presence within the hospital to appropriately position Minocin for the treatment of serious infections due to Acinetobacter. In addition, sales representatives target emergency department and community market channels to realize the full market potential of Orbactiv in the treatment of ABSSSI.



Pursue additional indications and regional approvals, leveraging our robust product portfolio and 10-year market exclusivity periods, as applicable, in the United States.  We may pursue additional indications for




existing products, leveraging the existing exclusivity period and are pursuing regional approvals both directly and in cooperation with commercialization partners outside the United States.



Leverage Melinta’s discovery platform and proprietary understanding of the ribosome to deliver novel drugs that can address the continuous need to combat bacterial resistance.  Our discovery platform has the potential to drive significant long-term value by providing a continual stream of novel antibiotics that meet the constantly evolving challenge of bacterial resistance. Our discovery platform is capable of both producing improvements to existing classes of drugs, as well as, developing new antibiotics. We and our partner have advanced radezolid, an improved oxazolidonone class antibiotic discovered by Melinta, into Phase 2 for the treatment of acne.  We have also received QIDP designation for radezolid for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis and are currently in the preclinical stage for this indication.  We are advancing its research efforts in the antibacterial space led by our ESKAPE pathogen program targeting “superbugs,” and are evaluating the potential of other platform opportunities in antifungals, antiparasitics and oncology.



Optimize partnerships to maximize the value of the product portfolio. We have a number of partnerships, including established partnerships for Baxdela in Europe and Asia-Pacific (excluding Japan) with Menarini IFR Srl, and in Central and South America with Eurofarma Laboratórios S.A. We have also secured a development partnership with a contract research organization (“CRO”) for our pipeline asset, radezolid, which is focused on the topical dermatology space, and we have a relationship related to solithromycin with Toyama Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Toyama”) in Japan. Opportunities exist to leverage existing or new partnerships for the combined Product Portfolio. We plan to evaluate the potential of existing and new business development opportunities to further generate non-dilutive capital and enhance shareholder value.

These partnerships are already progressing towards producing revenue. Menarini IFR Srl announced on March 8, 2017, that they had submitted a Marketing Authorization Application to the European Medicines Agency for delafloxacin (to be marketed under the trade name Quofenix in Europe) for the treatment of adult patients with ABSSSI. In South America, Eurofarma has submitted an application for approval to market Baxdela in Argentina and is preparing applications to several other countries.



Follow a rigorous process that will determine which programs and at what pace additional programs will be advanced.  With the combination of Melinta, the assets of Cempra and the assets of the IDB business, we have a rich portfolio of candidates for development. We intend to follow a disciplined and financially prudent process to determine the optimal timing to advance additional products or indications.



Leverage the enterprise’s commercial organization to promote complementary internally or externally developed products upon achievement of FDA regulatory approval. With an experienced team and commercial infrastructure in place, we are well positioned to add either internally or externally developed products to our portfolio while adding minimal new costs.  We may selectively pursue the addition of externally developed products to our existing marketed products and pipeline, leveraging our commercial infrastructure.


Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions.

In many cases, however, we believe that competition often will be determined by antibiotic class and any limitations of that antibiotic class in general, and the antibiotic specifically, in treating a particular disease or population.  We believe that the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of product candidates that we develop or acquire are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, convenience in dosing, price and reimbursement.

Intellectual Property

Due to the length of time and expense associated with bringing new products to market, biopharmaceutical companies have traditionally placed considerable importance on obtaining and maintaining patent protection for significant new technologies, products and processes. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by Patent Term Adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent. In the United States, and certain other countries, the patent’s term may also be lengthened by patent term extension or restoration, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays in granting a regulatory approval by the FDA, or similar agency in other countries.



While we pursue patent protection and enforcement of all our products and product candidates, and aspects of our technologies when appropriate, we also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological advancement to develop and maintain our competitive position. To protect this competitive position, we regularly enter into confidentiality and proprietary information agreements with third parties, including employees, independent contractors, suppliers and collaborators. Our employment policy requires each new employee to enter into an agreement containing provisions generally prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information to anyone outside of our company and providing that any invention conceived by an employee within the scope of his or her employment duties is our exclusive property. We have a similar policy with respect to independent contractors, generally requiring independent contractors to enter into agreements containing provisions generally prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information to anyone outside of our company and providing that any invention conceived by an independent contractor within the scope of his or her services is our exclusive property with the exception of contracts with universities and colleges that may be unable to make such assignments. Furthermore, our know-how that is accessed by third parties through collaborations and research and development contracts and through our relationships with scientific consultants is generally protected through confidentiality agreements with the appropriate parties.


We have a license, both exclusive and nonexclusive, from Wakunaga Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. to certain patents and patent applications, and to certain patents and patent applications of AbbVie. We have also licensed technology from CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated) for the use of Captisol, a sulfobutylether beta-cyclodextrin excipient, in connection with Baxdela. We have developed and patented additional technology independently.  The patent portfolio for Baxdela and delafloxacin meglumine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Baxdela, is related to compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, manufacturing methods and methods of use. In addition to the licensed and owned issued U.S. patents, the portfolio includes pending U.S. patent applications and corresponding foreign national or regional counterpart patents or applications. We expect that the patents and the patent applications in the portfolio, if issued, will expire between 2025 and 2034.

Minocin for injection

As a result of our acquisition of IDB, we acquired a patent portfolio relating to certain minocycline formulations and certain methods of administering minocycline. We have patents relating to the Minocin IV composition and certain methods of administering minocycline, each of which is set to expire in May 2031. We are also prosecuting other patent applications relating to minocycline formulations and methods of treatment in the United States and in certain foreign countries.


As a result of our acquisition of IDB, we obtained an exclusive license from Eli Lilly to patents relating to Orbactiv, its uses, formulations and methods of manufacture. The earliest-filed patent for Orbactiv that we acquired in our acquisition of Targanta, which relates to the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Orbactiv, will expire in the United States in November 2020. The Medicines Company also developed and patented additional technology.  We acquired from Medicines U.S. patents relating to methods of treatment expiring in 2029 and 2030, as well as a patent co-owned with AbbVie relating to high purity oritavancin that expires in 2035. Numerous foreign counterparts have been filed, including in Europe and Eurasia, for these more recent methods of treatment and compositions. We are also prosecuting a number of patent applications relating to Orbactiv and its uses in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions.


As a result of our acquisition of IDB, we acquired a portfolio of patents and patent applications relating to Vabomere, including the vaborbactam compound, the Vabomere composition, and methods of use. We are currently prosecuting related patent applications relating to Vabomere’s pharmaceutical composition and its use in the United States and in certain foreign countries.  In addition, patent applications are pending for synthesis intermediates, manufacturing flow processes and additional methods of use, which, if issued, would expire between 2035 and 2038.

Collaborations and Commercial Agreements

See Notes 8 and 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on certain of our collaboration and commercial agreements.


We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of the products in our product portfolio, or for the other product candidates that we might develop, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, API and finished products for commercial sales, as well as for our pre-clinical research and clinical trials. We employ internal resources and third-party consultants to manage our manufacturing contractors.



To date, we have ordered pre-clinical and clinical supplies under short-term contract orders. We do not have long-term contracts for the commercial supply of any of the products we sell, except for certain contracts for the production of ingredients of Vabomere.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are marketing or developing. All of our approved products are subject to extensive regulation, and our antibiotic product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States.

U.S. Drug Development and Review Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

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


Completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to good laboratory practices or other applicable regulations;


Submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application (“IND”), which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;


Performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s current good clinical practices (“cGCP”) to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;


Submission to the FDA of an NDA for a new drug;


Satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug is produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and


FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal trials 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 good laboratory practices.  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.

A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans.  If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.  Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator.  Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.  Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients.  The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board (“IRB”) for approval.  An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.



Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap.  In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness.  Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks.  If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug.  In most cases FDA requires two adequate and well‑controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug.  A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible.

Pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act, the manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious or life-threatening disease in a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access.  

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 U.S.  The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls.  The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial.  The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, which is typically increased annually.  

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review.  Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review.  The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of new drug applications.  Most such applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed in six to eight months.  Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists.  The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee – typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts – for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved.  The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.  Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.  Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured.  FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMP is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter.  A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application.  If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter.  FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

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



Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on the website Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of a clinical trial are then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of clinical development programs as well as clinical trial design.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective.  The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data.  Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.  

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”) provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity – patent or non-patent – for a drug if certain conditions are met.  Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe.  Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide a process for listing patents pertaining to approved products in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the “Orange Book”) and for a competitor seeking approval of an application that references a product with listed patents to make certifications pertaining to such patents. In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide for a statutory protection, known as non-patent exclusivity, against the FDA’s acceptance or approval of certain competitor applications.

Patent Term Restoration

Patent term restoration can compensate for time lost during product development and the regulatory review process by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, provided the sponsor acted with diligence. Patent term restorations, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims covering the applicant’s product or method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents identified in the application for the drug are then published in the FDA’s Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”). An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent 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 effectiveness 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 certify 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 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 labeling does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to 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 filed 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.

An applicant submitting an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, which permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference, is required to certify to the FDA regarding any patents listed in the Orange Book for the approved product it references to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Market Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for an NCE. A drug is entitled to NCE exclusivity if it contains a drug substance no active moiety of which has been previously approved by the FDA. This means that, in the case of a fixed-dose combination product, the FDA makes the NCE exclusivity determination for each drug substance in the drug product and not for the drug product as a whole. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification. For a drug that has been previously approved by the FDA, the FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the new conditions of use and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs for the original conditions of use, such as the originally approved indication. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the non-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Antibiotic Exclusivity

Under the GAIN Act, upon NDA approval, a drug product designated by FDA as a QIDP receives a five-year extension of any five-year NCE exclusivity, three-year exclusivity, or seven-year orphan drug exclusivity.  This exclusivity applies only with respect to drugs that are first approved on or after July 9, 2012.  An efficacy supplement to an approved NDA is not eligible for the five-year exclusivity extension if the application that is being supplemented has previously received the five-year GAIN exclusivity extension.  A QIDP is defined as an antibacterial or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by (1) an antibacterial or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens or (2) qualifying pathogens, which are defined as those that have the potential to pose a serious threat to public health and that are included in a list established and maintained by FDA.

A drug sponsor may request that FDA designate its product as a QIDP at any time prior to NDA submission.  FDA must make a QIDP determination within 60 days of receiving the designation request.  The first NDA for a specific drug product and indication for which QIDP designation was granted will automatically be granted priority review.  A subsequent application from the same sponsor for the same product and indication will receive priority review designation only if it otherwise meets the criteria for priority review.



Post-Approval Requirements in the United States

Any drug product for which we receive FDA approval will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, cGMP requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and consistent with the provisions of the approved labeling. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval. In addition, beginning in 2018, the applicant under an approved NDA is subject to a substantial annual program fee (replacing the previous product and establishment fees) for each prescription drug product.

Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), a part of the FDCA. In addition, Title II of the Federal Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013, known as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act or the DSCSA, has imposed new “track and trace” requirements on the distribution of prescription drug products by manufacturers, distributors, and other entities in the drug supply chain. These requirements are being phased in over a ten-year period. The DSCSA ultimately will require product identifiers (i.e., serialization) on prescription drug products in order to establish an electronic interoperable prescription product system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States. The DSCSA replaced the prior drug “pedigree” requirements under the PDMA, and preempts existing state drug pedigree laws and regulations. The DSCSA also establishes new requirements for the licensing of wholesale distributors and third-party logistic providers. These licensing requirements preempt states from imposing licensing requirements that are inconsistent with, less stringent than, directly related to, or otherwise encompassed by standards established by FDA pursuant to the DSCSA. Until FDA promulgates regulations to address the DSCSA’s new national licensing standard, current state licensing requirements typically remain in effect.

The FDA may withdraw a product approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems (quality or safety) occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown quality, safety, or other problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Further, the failure to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements may result in administrative or judicial actions, such as fines, warning letters, holds on clinical trials, product recalls or seizures, product detention or refusal to permit the import or export of products, refusal to approve pending applications or supplements, restrictions on marketing or manufacturing, injunctions or civil or criminal penalties.

In addition, from time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in the U.S. Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. For example, in September 2007, the FDAAA was enacted giving the FDA enhanced post-market authority, including the authority to require post-market studies and clinical trials, labeling changes based on new safety information and compliance with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. Failure to comply with any requirements under the new law may result in significant penalties. The law also authorized significant civil money penalties for the dissemination of false or misleading direct-to-consumer advertisements and allows the FDA to require companies to submit direct-to-consumer television drug advertisements for FDA review prior to public dissemination. In addition to this legislation, the FDA regulations and policies are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or FDA regulation or policy changes will be enacted or implemented and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Anti-Kickback and False Claims Laws and Other Regulatory Matters

In the United States, in addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years.  These laws include anti-kickback statutes, false claims statutes, and other statutes pertaining to health care fraud and abuse.  The federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally financed healthcare programs.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, “ACA”), amended the intent element of the federal statute so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it.  This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other.  Violations of the anti-kickback statute are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, civil monetary penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs.  Although



there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor.

Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid.  This includes claims made to programs where the federal government reimburses, such as Medicaid, as well as programs where the federal government is a direct purchaser, such as when it purchases off the Federal Supply Schedule.  Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product.  In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws.  Additionally, the ACA amended the federal false claims law such that a violation of the federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute can serve as a basis for liability under the federal false claims law.  The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Other federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the civil monetary penalties statute, which prohibits the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offeror/payor knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order a receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular supplier, and the healthcare fraud statute, which prohibits knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises any money or property owned by or under the control of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items, or services.

Pursuant to the ACA, manufacturers of prescription drugs are required to collect and report information on payments or transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reports are due on an annual basis, and the reported data is posted in searchable form on a public website.  Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.  

There are also an increasing number of state laws with requirements for manufacturers and/or marketers of pharmaceutical products.  Some states require the reporting of expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and the reporting of gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states.  Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals.  Still other states require the reporting of certain pricing information, including information pertaining to, and justification of, price increases, or prohibit prescription drug price gouging.  In addition, states such as California, Connecticut, Nevada, and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes.  Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, as discussed below, a similar federal requirement requires manufacturers to track and report to the federal government certain payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals made in the previous calendar year. These laws may affect our sales, marketing and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state, and soon federal, authorities.

Government Programs for Marketed Drugs

Medicaid, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and Medicare

Federal law requires that a pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a condition of having its products receive federal reimbursement under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, must pay rebates to state Medicaid programs for all units of its covered outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program under either a fee-for-service arrangement or through a managed care organization. This federal requirement is effectuated through a Medicaid drug rebate agreement between the manufacturer and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) administers the Medicaid drug rebate agreements, which provide, among other things, that the drug manufacturer will pay rebates to each state Medicaid agency on a quarterly basis and report certain price information on a monthly and quarterly basis. The rebates are based on prices reported to CMS by manufacturers for their covered outpatient drugs. For innovator products, that is, drugs that are marketed under approved NDAs, the basic rebate amount is the greater of 23.1% of the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) for the quarter or the difference between such AMP and the best price for that same quarter. The AMP is the weighted average of prices paid to the manufacturer (1) directly by retail community pharmacies and (2) by wholesalers for drugs distributed to retail community pharmacies. The best price is essentially the lowest price available to non-governmental entities. Innovator products are also subject to an additional rebate that is based on the amount, if any, by which the product’s current AMP has increased over the baseline AMP, which is the AMP for the first full quarter after launch, adjusted for inflation. For non-innovator products, generally generic drugs marketed under approved abbreviated new drug applications, the basic rebate amount is 13% of the AMP for the quarter. Until recent amendments to the statute, this was the only rebate applicable to non-innovator products. However, as a result of a November 2015



amendment, non-innovator products are also subject to the additional rebate. The additional rebate is similar to that discussed above for innovator products, except that the baseline AMP quarter is the fifth full quarter after launch (for non-innovator multiple source drugs launched on April 1, 2013 or later) or the third quarter of 2014 (for those launched before April 1, 2013). The statutory definition of AMP was amended in 2010 by the ACA. In February 2016, CMS published a final rule to further define AMP and provide clarification on other parts of the rebate program.  The terms of participation in the Medicaid drug rebate program impose an obligation to correct the prices reported in previous quarters, as may be necessary. Any such corrections could result in additional or lesser rebate liability, depending on the direction of the correction. In addition to retroactive rebates, if a manufacturer were found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, federal law provides for civil monetary penalties for failing to provide required information, late submission of required information, and false information.

A manufacturer must also participate in a federal program known as the 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available to pay for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Under this program, the participating manufacturer agrees to charge certain safety net healthcare providers no more than an established discounted price for its covered outpatient drugs. The formula for determining the discounted price is defined by statute and is based on the AMP and the unit rebate amount as calculated under the Medicaid drug rebate program, discussed above. Manufacturers have not been required to report any pricing information to the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), but HRSA issued a notice proposing to collect such information from manufacturers on a quarterly basis and is in the process of preparing a system to operationalize this requirement. HRSA has also issued regulations relating to the calculation of the ceiling price as well as imposition of civil monetary penalties for each instance of knowingly and intentionally overcharging a 340B covered entity.

Federal law also requires that manufacturers report data on a quarterly basis to CMS regarding the pricing of drugs that are separately reimbursable under Medicare Part B. These are generally drugs, such as injectable products, that are administered “incident to” a physician service and are not generally self-administered. The pricing information submitted by manufacturers is the basis for reimbursement to physicians and suppliers for drugs covered under Medicare Part B. As with the Medicaid drug rebate program, federal law provides for civil monetary penalties for failing to provide required information, late submission of required information, and false information.

Medicare Part D provides prescription drug benefits for seniors and people with disabilities. Medicare Part D beneficiaries have a gap in their coverage (between the initial coverage limit and the point at which catastrophic coverage begins) where Medicare does not cover their prescription drug costs, known as the coverage gap. However, by 2020, Medicare Part D beneficiaries will pay 25% of drug costs after they reach the initial coverage limit - the same percentage they were responsible for before they reached that limit - thereby closing the coverage gap. The cost of closing the coverage gap is being borne by innovator companies and the government through subsidies. Beginning in 2011, each manufacturer of drugs approved under NDAs was required to enter into a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount agreement and provide a 50% discount on those drugs dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries in the coverage gap, in order for its drugs to be reimbursed by Medicare Part D.  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 increased the manufacturer’s subsidy under the program from 50% to 70% of the negotiated price, beginning in 2019.  

Federal Contracting/Pricing Requirements

Manufacturers are also required to make their covered drugs, which are generally drugs approved under NDAs, available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”), of the General Services Administration. The law also requires manufacturers to offer deeply discounted FSS contract pricing for purchases of their covered drugs by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense (“DoD”), the Coast Guard, and the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service) in order for federal funding to be available for reimbursement or purchase of the manufacturer’s drugs under certain federal programs. FSS pricing to those four federal agencies for covered drugs must be no more than the Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), which is at least 24% below the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”) for the prior year. The Non-FAMP is the average price for covered drugs sold to wholesalers or other middlemen, net of any price reductions.

The accuracy of a manufacturer’s reported Non-FAMPs, FCPs, or FSS contract prices may be audited by the government. Among the remedies available to the government for inaccuracies is recoupment of any overcharges to the four specified federal agencies based on those inaccuracies. If a manufacturer were found to have knowingly reported false prices, in addition to other penalties available to the government, the law provides for civil monetary penalties of $100,000 per incorrect item. Finally, manufacturers are required to disclose in FSS contract proposals all commercial pricing that is equal to or less than the proposed FSS pricing, and subsequent to award of an FSS contract, manufacturers are required to monitor certain commercial price reductions and extend commensurate price reductions to the government, under the terms of the FSS contract Price Reductions Clause. Among the remedies available to the government for any failure to properly disclose commercial pricing and/or to extend FSS contract price reductions is recoupment of any FSS overcharges that may result from such omissions.



Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Program

The DoD provides pharmacy benefits to current and retired military service members and their families through the Tricare healthcare program. When a Tricare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug through a retail pharmacy, the DoD reimburses the pharmacy at the retail price for the drug rather than procuring it from the manufacturer at the discounted FCP discussed above. In order for the DoD to realize discounted prices for covered drugs (generally drugs approved under NDAs), federal law requires manufacturers to pay refunds on utilization of their covered drugs sold to Tricare beneficiaries through retail pharmacies in DoD’s Tricare network. These refunds are generally the difference between the Non-FAMP and the FCP and are due on a quarterly basis. Absent an agreement from the manufacturer to provide such refunds, DoD will designate the manufacturer’s products as Tier 3 (non-formulary) and require that beneficiaries obtain prior authorization in order for the products to be dispensed at a Tricare retail network pharmacy. However, refunds are due whether or not the manufacturer has entered into such an agreement.

Branded Pharmaceutical Fee

A branded pharmaceutical fee is imposed on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs (including authorized generics), generally drugs approved under NDAs (excluding orphan drugs). In each year between 2011 and 2018, the aggregate fee for all such manufacturers will range from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion, and then will remain at $2.8 billion in 2019 and subsequent years. This annual fee is apportioned among the participating companies based on each company’s sales of qualifying products to or utilization by certain U.S. government programs during the preceding calendar year. The fee became effective January 1, 2011, and is not deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Utilization of generic drugs, generally drugs approved under ANDAs, is not included in a manufacturer’s sales used to calculate its portion of the fee.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products to the extent we choose to sell any products outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required to obtain FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. Our primary strategy is to find partners that operate in foreign countries and collaborate with them to seek approval for, and market, our products, generating royalty and licensing revenue.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

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

In 2003, the U.S. government enacted legislation providing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, which became effective at the beginning of 2006. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for any products for which we receive marketing approval. However, to obtain payments under this program, we would be required to sell products to Medicare recipients through prescription drug plans operating pursuant to this legislation. These plans will likely negotiate discounted prices for our products. In March 2010, the ACA, as amended, became law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. We anticipate that this legislation will result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product. Federal, state and local governments in the United States continue to consider legislation to limit the growth of health care costs, including the cost of prescription drugs. Future legislation could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as the drug candidates that we are developing.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the European community, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of



these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of our particular drug products to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Corporate History and Information

On November 3, 2017, Cempra, Inc. merged with privately-held Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. in a reverse triangular merger, wherein the former Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. became a subsidiary of Cempra, Inc. and was re-named Melinta Subsidiary Corp. As a result of the merger, the holders of preferred and common shares of the former Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., as well as, holders of convertible notes issued by the former Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., became holders of shares of common stock of Cempra, Inc. Immediately after the merger, Cempra, Inc. was renamed Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. Our stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol MLNT.

Cempra, Inc. was originally formed as Cempra Holdings, LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware, on May 16, 2008. Cempra Holdings, LLC was formed in connection with a reorganization whereby the shareholders of Cempra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware on November 18, 2005, exchanged their shares of Cempra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. stock for shares of Cempra Holdings, LLC, pursuant to a merger of a subsidiary of Cempra Holdings, LLC with and into Cempra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as a result of which Cempra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. became a wholly owned subsidiary of Cempra Holdings, LLC.

On February 2, 2012, Cempra Holdings, LLC converted from a Delaware limited liability company to a Delaware corporation and was renamed Cempra, Inc. As a result of the corporate conversion, the holders of common shares of Cempra Holdings, LLC became holders of shares of common stock of Cempra, Inc. and the holders of preferred shares of Cempra Holdings, LLC became holders of shares of common stock of Cempra, Inc. Holders of options to purchase common shares of Cempra Holdings, LLC became holders of options to purchase shares of common stock of Cempra, Inc. Holders of notes convertible into preferred shares of Cempra Holdings, LLC and associated warrants exercisable for preferred shares of Cempra Holdings, LLC became holders of shares of common stock and warrants to purchase shares of common stock of Cempra, Inc.

Our primary executive offices are located at 300 George St, Suite 301, New Haven, CT 06511, and our telephone number is (312) 767-0291. Our website address is The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this report.

Available Information

We make available, free of charge through our website,, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as is reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed or furnished to the SEC.  Shareholders and other interested parties may also contact us and request these documents through the Investor Relations section of our website.  

Our website also contains corporate governance information including: audit, compensation and nominating and governance committee charters, and our business ethics and conduct policy.


As of March 2, 2018, we had approximately 300 employees. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.






Item 1A. Risk Factors

This report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in this report. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed below and elsewhere in this report and in any documents incorporated in this report by reference.

If any of the following risks, or other risks not presently known to us or that we currently believe to not be significant, develop into actual events, then our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially adversely affected. If that happens, the market price of our common stock could decline, and shareholders may lose all or part of their investment.

Risks Related to our Business

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

Until recently, we have been a development stage company and have incurred losses since inception. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $572.7 million and we recorded net losses of $58.9 million for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. We expect to continue to incur operating losses and negative cash flows through at least 2020. These losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on shareholders’ equity and working capital.  

Our limited operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our business and prospects.

Prior to our recent commercial launch of Baxdela and our acquisition of Vabomere, Orbactiv and Minocin from Medicines in the first quarter of 2018, our operations have been limited to financing and staffing our company, conducting product development activities, engaging in commercial launch preparation activities, and performing research and development activities. We have not yet demonstrated ability, as a company, to successfully commercialize and launch a product candidate or market and sell products. Consequently, the ability to predict our future performance may not be as accurate as it could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may not be able to fund our operations.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents of $128.4 million. Based on our operating plans, we currently do not have sufficient working capital to fund planned operating expenses for 2018 without additional sources of cash. In their audit opinion issued in connection with the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, cash flows, and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, our independent registered public accounting firm stated that our recurring losses from operations and our need to obtain additional capital raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We will need to obtain additional financing to fund future operations, including the ongoing commercialization and launch of Baxdela and Vabomere and to support the ongoing sales of Minocin and Orbactiv, as well as the development and commercialization of our product candidates and to support sales and marketing activities. Moreover, our fixed expenses such as rent, license payments, interest expense and other contractual commitments are substantial. As noted above, as an early commercial-stage company, we have not yet demonstrated the ability, as a company, to successfully commercialize and launch a product candidate, or market and sell products, and our marketed products have very limited sales history, with Baxdela and Vabomere launching in recent months and Medicines launching Orbactiv and Minocin in 2014 and 2015, respectively. As such, even if we obtain additional funding to support our operating plan, it is possible that we may fail to appropriately estimate the timing and amount of our funding requirements and we may need to seek additional funding sooner, and in larger amounts, than we currently anticipate.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:


the costs and timing of establishing sales, marketing, reimbursement capabilities, and the acceptance of our products by the marketplace;  


the initiation, progress, timing, scope and costs of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials, including the ability to timely enroll patients in our ongoing, planned and potential future clinical trials;  


the time and cost necessary to obtain regulatory approvals;  


the costs of manufacturing clinical and commercial supplies of our products and product candidates;


payments of acquisition or other milestones and royalties to third parties;


the time and cost necessary to respond to technological and market developments;  


the costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any patent claims and other intellectual property rights; and  


the terms of any collaborative, license and other commercial relationships that Melinta may establish.  



As of December 31, 2017, we have not generated any revenue from the sale of any products. Until we can generate a sufficient amount of revenue, we may raise additional funds through collaborations with third parties, out-licensing of rights to our product candidates, and public or private debt or equity financings. Additional funds may not be available when needed on terms that are acceptable, or at all. Further, we are limited in the types of financing that we may pursue given the underlying terms of our credit agreement, which limits our ability to incur more debt or service additional debt payments outside of the additional $50.0 million in debt available thereunder (subject to the satisfaction of certain revenue targets) and the $20.0 million revolver that is permitted thereunder. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of existing shareholders will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

Moreover, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control.  Securing additional financing, however, will require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to conduct our day-to-day operations. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be unable to fund our future operations, including the ongoing commercialization of Baxdela and Vabomere and the ongoing sales of Minocin and Orbactiv, as well as the development and commercialization of our product candidates and the support of sales and marketing activities.  As a result, our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability may be substantially harmed, and we may be required to significantly curtail some or all of our activities. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise that may require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates or some of our technologies or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us.

Melinta has substantial indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2017, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to our transaction with Medicines and related financing transactions in early January 2018, Melinta has total indebtedness of $147.8 million and, under the Deerfield agreement, has the ability to access another $50.0 million in debt, provided certain revenue targets are achieved. Having a substantial amount of leverage may have important consequences, including:


requiring a substantial portion of cash flow from operations to be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on indebtedness, thereby reducing the ability to use cash flow from Melinta’s operations to fund operations, capital expenditures, and future business opportunities;


limiting the ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, product and service development, debt service requirements, acquisitions, and general corporate or other purposes including equipment financing at reasonable rates, which is vital to Melinta’s business;


increasing the risks of adverse consequences resulting from a breach of any indebtedness agreement, including, for example, a failure to make required payments of principal or interest due to failure of our business to perform as expected;


increasing vulnerability to general economic and industry conditions;


restricting the ability to make strategic acquisitions or requiring non-strategic divestitures;


limiting our ability to incur additional debt;


subjecting Melinta’s operations to restrictive covenants that may limit operating flexibility; and


placing Melinta’s operations at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors that are less highly leveraged.

Despite Melinta’s substantial leverage, we may be able to incur significant additional amounts of debt, which could further exacerbate the risks associated with our significant leverage.

If we are not successful with the commercial launches of our products, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business likely would be materially harmed.

In the first quarter of 2018, we commercially launched Baxdela and acquired from Medicines the rights related to the products Vabomere, Orbactiv and Minocin. Medicines commercially launched Orbactiv in the United States in the third quarter of 2014, launched the new formulation of Minocin in the United States in 2015 and launched Vabomere in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2017. Commercial launches of this number of products in such a short period of time has and will continue to require significant efforts from Melinta and the devotion of substantial resources as we will need to ensure we have manufactured sufficient quantities of product to complete commercial sales and establish and maintain the infrastructure necessary to commercially launch these products and products in development.



Our ability to successfully commercially launch these products and products in development will depend on our ability to:


train, deploy and manage a qualified sales force to market and sell our newly launched products;


secure formulary approvals at our hospital customers;


have third parties manufacture and release the products in sufficient quantities;


implement and maintain agreements with wholesalers, distributors and group purchasing organizations;


receive adequate levels of coverage and reimbursement for these products from governments and third-party payors; and


develop and execute effective marketing and sales strategies and programs for the products.

We expect that the revenues from these products and products in development will represent a significant portion of our revenues in the future. As a result, if we are unable to successfully commercialize these products and products in development, our business, results of operations and financial condition likely would be materially harmed.

We are building our own marketing and sales organization, but have no experience as a company in marketing drug products. If we are unable to successfully establish our own marketing and sales capabilities, we may not be able to generate product revenues.

In order to successfully commercialize, launch and sell our products, we must develop capabilities (or make arrangements with third parties) for the marketing, sales and distribution of our products.  We have and will need to incur significant additional expenses and commit significant additional management resources to establish and train a sales force to market and sell. We may not be able to successfully establish these capabilities despite these additional expenditures.  In the event we are unable to successfully develop our own marketing and sales force (or collaborate with a third-party marketing and sales organization), we will not be able to commercialize, launch and sell our products, which would negatively impact our ability to generate product revenues. Further, whether we commercialize products on our own or rely on a third party to do so, our ability to generate revenue will be dependent on the effectiveness of the sales force.  We compete with other pharmaceutical and life sciences companies to recruit, hire, train and retain sales and marketing personnel. In the event we are unable to successfully market and promote our products, our business may be harmed.

The commercial success of our products and any future product of Melinta will depend upon the degree of market acceptance of these products among physicians, patients, health care payors and the medical community.

It cannot be assured that our products (including any additional indication thereof) or any of our product candidates that may be approved in the future will gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, health care payors and the medical community. Efforts to educate the medical community and third party payors on the benefits of our products and product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. The degree of market acceptance for our products will depend on a number of factors, including:


the effectiveness of such products as compared to other products pertaining to their respective indications;  


prevalence and severity of adverse side effects;


acceptance by physicians and payors of each product as a safe and effective treatment;


limitations or warnings contained in a product’s FDA approved labeling;


the market price and patient out-of-pocket costs of the product relative to other treatment options, including any generics;  


relative convenience and ease of administration;  


willingness by clinicians to stop using current treatments and adopt a new treatment;  


restriction on healthcare provider prescribing of and patient access to products due to a risk evaluation mitigation strategy;  


the availability and efficacy of competitive drugs;


our ability to recruit and retain a sales force, if necessary;


the effectiveness of our or any third-party partner’s sales force and marketing efforts;


our ability to forecast demand and maintain sufficient supplies of our drug products;


our ability to manufacture or obtain commercial quantities of our drug products;


the strength of our sales and marketing and distribution support;




the effectiveness of our marketing and advertising campaigns;


our ability to deliver our products on a timely basis;


the extent to which bacteria develop resistance to any antibiotic product candidate that we develop, thereby limiting its efficacy in treating or managing infections;


our ability to establish and maintain pricing sufficient to realize a meaningful return on our investment;


acceptance on hospital formularies (which may limit sales activities in those hospitals);


whether the product is designated under physician treatment guidelines as a first-line therapy or as a second- or third-line therapy for particular infections;


the availability of adequate reimbursement by third parties, such as insurance companies and other health care payors, and/or by government health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid;


adverse publicity about a product or favorable publicity about competitive products; and


potential product liability claims.

The successful commercialization of our products will depend on the pricing we are able to achieve for our products.

Our ability to successfully commercialize our products will be dependent on whether we can obtain adequate pricing for any particular product. Pricing may be substantially dependent on our ability to obtain reimbursement from third party payors, both in the United States and in foreign countries. Outside the United States, certain countries, including a number of European Union (“E.U.”) members, set prices and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, or medicinal products as they are commonly referred to in the E.U., with limited participation from those marketing the products. We cannot be sure that any prices and reimbursement will be acceptable to us or our strategic commercial partners. If the regulatory authorities in these foreign jurisdictions set prices or reimbursement that are not commercially attractive for us or our strategic commercial partners, our revenues from sales by us or our collaborators, and the potential profitability of our product candidates, in those countries would be negatively affected. Further, through contractual or other arrangements, the price we may be able to obtain in foreign countries may be dependent on the price we can achieve in the United States.

If we fail to obtain and sustain an adequate level of reimbursement for our products or future approved products by third-party payors, sales would be adversely affected.

There will be no commercially viable market for our products or any future approved products without reimbursement from third-party payors. Even if there is a commercially viable market, if the level of reimbursement is below our expectations, our revenue and gross margins will be adversely affected.

Third-party payors, such as government or private health care insurers, carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, drugs. Reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies vary depending on the company, the insurance plan and other factors. A current trend in the U.S. health care industry is toward cost containment. Large public and private payors, managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations and similar organizations are exerting increasing influence on decisions regarding the use of, and reimbursement levels for, particular treatments. Such third-party payors, including Medicare, are questioning the coverage of, and challenging the prices charged for, medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit coverage of or reimbursement for newly approved health care products. In particular, third-party payors may limit the covered indications. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products, which could result in product revenues being lower than anticipated. If the prices for our products decrease or if governmental and other third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement levels, our revenue and prospects for profitability will suffer. Further, the availability of numerous generic antibiotics at lower prices than branded antibiotics may also substantially reduce the likelihood of reimbursement for such products.

Specifically, in both the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the health care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, also called the Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”), changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. As a result of this legislation and the expansion of federal coverage of drug products, we expect that there will be additional pressure to contain and reduce costs. These cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products and could seriously harm our business. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments



from private payors.  In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, “ACA”) became law in the United States The goal of ACA is to reduce the cost of health care and substantially change the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. While we cannot predict what ultimate impact on federal reimbursement policies this legislation will have in general or on our business specifically, the ACA may result in downward pressure on pharmaceutical reimbursement, which could negatively affect market acceptance of future products. Members of the U.S. Congress and some state legislatures had sought to overturn at least portions of the legislation including those on the mandatory purchase of insurance. However, on June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these provisions. Members of the U.S. Congress have since proposed a number of legislative initiatives, including repeal of all or portions of the ACA. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of current proposals or whether new proposals will be made or adopted, when they may be adopted or what impact they may have on us if they are adopted.

Reimbursement systems in international markets vary significantly by country and by region, and reimbursement approvals must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. Reimbursement in the European Union must be negotiated on a country-by-country basis and in many countries the product cannot be commercially launched until reimbursement is approved. The negotiation process in some countries can exceed 12 months.

Our estimates of the market for and commercialization potential of our products or for any product candidate, including expanded indications for existing products, may be inaccurate or vary significantly from the market size ultimately realized.

The potential market opportunities for our products and any product candidates are difficult to estimate precisely. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities are predicated on many assumptions, including industry knowledge and publications, third party research reports and other surveys. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, these assumptions involve the exercise of significant judgment on the part of our management, are inherently uncertain and the reasonableness of these assumptions has not been assessed by an independent source. If any of the assumptions proves to be inaccurate, the actual markets for our products and candidates could be smaller than our estimates of the potential market opportunities.

In addition, our estimates regarding the timing and amount of acceptance of any product or product candidate, and the pricing achievable for any product or product candidate may prove incorrect. Further, our plans for commercialization of any product candidate may not materialize in the time or manner we anticipate and may be adversely impacted by any required label warnings, any perceived safety or efficacy concerns, or the actions of our competitors. Finally, we may underestimate the demand for a product or product candidate, which could lead to lack of commercial quantities when needed and result in market backlash against the product or product candidate. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our plans for commercialization of and the generation of any revenue from any product or product candidate.

A failure to maintain optimal inventory levels to meet commercial demand for any of our products or any future approved products could harm our reputation and subject us to financial losses.

Our manufacturing lead time varies by product; for some products it can exceed two years. Accurate product planning is necessary to ensure that we maintain optimal inventory levels for any of our products or any future approved products, significant differences between our estimates and judgments and future actual demand for any of our products or any future approved products and the shelf life of inventory may result in significant charges for excess inventory or purchase commitments in the future. If we are required to recognize charges for excess inventories, such charges could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Our ability to maintain optimal inventory levels also depends on the performance of third-party contract manufacturers. If our manufacturers are unsuccessful in either obtaining raw materials, if we are unable to release inventory on a timely and consistent basis, if we fail to maintain an adequate level of product inventory, if inventory is destroyed or damaged, or if our inventory reaches its expiration date, patients might not have access to our products, sales could be lost, our reputation and brands could be harmed, and physicians may be less likely to prescribe our products in the future, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If our competitors are able to develop and market products that are preferred over our products or any future approved products, our commercial opportunity for such products will be reduced.

We face competition from established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions, which may in the future develop products to treat ABSSSI, CABP, cUTI or other diseases or conditions that our products and product candidates target. In many cases, however, we believe that competition often will be determined by antibiotic class and any limitations of that antibiotic class in general, and the antibiotic treating a particular disease or population.



In particular, there are a variety of available therapies marketed for the treatment of ABSSSI.  Some of these products are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved products are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and hospital decision-makers.  Vancomycin, for instance, which is sold in a relatively inexpensive generic form, has been widely used for over 50 years, is the most frequently used IV antibiotic, and we believe, based on our market research, is prescribed to approximately two-thirds of all hospitalized ABSSSI patients.  Insurers and other third-party payers may encourage the use of generic products.

We face competition from both established and early-stage pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. There are also a number of products in clinical development by third parties to treat ABSSSI.

If any of these product candidates or any other products developed by our competitors are more effective, safer, more convenient or less costly than our products, or would otherwise render our products obsolete or non-competitive, our anticipated revenues from our products could be adversely affected.

We expect that our ability to compete effectively will depend upon, among other things, our ability to:


successfully and rapidly complete clinical trials and obtain all required regulatory approvals in a timely and cost-effective manner;  


maintain patent protection for and otherwise prevent the introduction of generics;  


attract and retain key personnel;


build an adequate sales and marketing infrastructure; and


obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party payors.

Our dependence upon third parties for the manufacture and supply of our marketed products and any of our product candidates that may be approved in the future, may cause delays in, or prevent us from, successfully developing, commercializing and/or marketing our products.

We do not currently have nor do we plan to build the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our marketed products or product candidates. We rely upon and expect to continue to rely upon third-parties for the manufacture and supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”) contained in our products and product candidates, as well as the preparation of finished products and their packaging.

Before any of our products manufactured by contract manufacturers can be distributed, an NDA containing appropriate chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information must be approved by the FDA. In addition, our contract manufacturers must maintain a compliance status that is acceptable to the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities.  In addition, pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities are continuously subject to inspection by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities, before and after product approval. Due to the complexity of the processes used to manufacture pharmaceutical products and product candidates, any potential third-party manufacturer may be unable to continue to pass or initially pass federal, state or international regulatory inspections in a cost-effective manner or at all.

Although we do not control the day-to-day operations of our contract manufacturers, we are responsible for ensuring that our products are manufactured in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, including cGMPs. If a third-party manufacturer with whom we contract is unable to comply with manufacturing regulations, our product candidates may not be approved or we may be subject to fines, unanticipated compliance expenses, recall or seizure of our products, total or partial suspension of production and/or enforcement actions, including injunctions, and criminal or civil prosecution.  These possible sanctions would adversely affect our financial results and financial condition.

In addition, our reliance on foreign suppliers poses risks due to possible shipping delays, import restrictions and foreign regulatory regimes.

We also could experience manufacturing delays if our third-party manufacturers give greater priority to the supply of other products over our products or otherwise do not satisfactorily perform according to the terms of the agreement between us.  If any supplier of API or finished drug product for our products experiences any significant difficulties in its respective manufacturing processes, does not comply with the terms of the agreement between us or does not devote sufficient time, energy and care to providing our manufacturing needs, we could experience significant interruptions in the supply of API, which could prevent or delay our development, commercialization and/or sales activities.  In addition there is a risk that we may be obligated to purchase quantities of API that exceed our needs, or at prices which exceed our commercial returns, including, for example, pursuant to our arrangements with Toyama and Fujifilm, as further described in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Finally, any manufacturing facility is at risk of natural or man-made disaster, which could significantly reduce our clinical and commercial supplies of drug product.



These same risks apply to procuring comparator API or other comparator supplies needed for clinical trials in which we may compare our product candidates to currently approved drugs.

The timing of the milestone and royalty payments we are required to make to third parties is uncertain and could adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations.

We are party to various agreements pursuant to which we are obligated to make milestone payments or pay royalties in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or sales of our marketed products.  In particular, we have to pay $30.0 million upon receiving approval of Vabomere for European commercialization, and make two $25.0 million payments twelve and eighteen months after the acquisition date to Medicines as part of the IDB Transaction. The timing of our achievement of these milestones and the corresponding milestone payments, or the amount of our royalty payments, is subject to factors which are difficult to predict and for which many are beyond our control. We may become obligated to make a milestone or other payment at a time when we do not have sufficient funds to make such payment, or at a time that would otherwise require us to use funds needed to continue to operate our business, which could delay our clinical trials, curtail our operations, necessitate a scaling back of our commercialization and marketing efforts or cause us to seek funds to meet these obligations on terms unfavorable to us. If we are unable to make any payment when due or if we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain development and commercialization milestones within the timeframes required by certain of these agreements, the other party may have the right to terminate the agreement and all of our rights to develop and commercialize product candidates using the applicable technology.

We may not realize the benefits of our recent acquisition from Medicines.

Integrating the acquired operations of the infectious disease business of Medicines successfully or otherwise realizing any of the anticipated benefits of the acquisition, including additional revenue opportunities, involves a number of challenges. The failure to meet these integration challenges could seriously harm Melinta’s results of operations and the market price of Melinta’s common stock may decline as a result. As part of the acquisition, Melinta and Medicines entered into a transition services agreement to assist with integration following the acquisition. Our inability or failure to implement an orderly transition or the insufficiency of our integration plans and procedures could result in failure of or delays in the integration and could adversely impact Melinta’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be required to take write-downs or write-offs, restructuring and impairment or other charges related to our acquisition from Medicines that could have a significant negative effect on our financial condition, results of operations and stock price.

Although Melinta has conducted due diligence on the products it acquired from Medicines, we cannot assure you that this diligence revealed all material issues that may be present, that it would be possible to uncover all material issues through a customary amount of due diligence, or that factors outside of Melinta’s control will not later arise. As a result, we may be forced to later write down or write off assets, restructure our operations, or incur impairment or other charges that could result in losses. Even if our due diligence successfully identifies certain risks, unexpected risks may arise and previously known risks may materialize in a manner not consistent with its preliminary risk analysis. Even though these charges may be non-cash items and may not have an immediate impact on our liquidity, the fact that Melinta reports charges of this nature could contribute to negative market perceptions about Melinta or its securities. In addition, charges of this nature may cause Melinta to be unable to obtain future financing on favorable terms or at all.

We may not be successful in establishing and maintaining development and commercialization collaborations, which could adversely affect our ability to develop certain of our product candidates and our financial condition and operating results.

Developing pharmaceutical products, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval, establishing manufacturing capabilities and marketing approved products is expensive. For example, we have established significant commercial relationships to market Baxdela outside the United States with Menarini, Eurofarma, and Malin Life Sciences Holdings Limited. We have also entered into a collaboration agreement with a clinical research organization for the development of radezolid and a relationship related to solithromycin with Toyama in Japan. We plan to establish additional collaborations for development and commercialization of product candidates and research programs, including funding the continued development of Baxdela, radezolid and potentially other products and indications. Additionally, we intend to enter into sales and marketing arrangements with third parties for international sales, and to develop our own sales force in the United States If we are unable to maintain our existing arrangements or enter into any new such arrangements on acceptable terms, if at all, we may be unable to effectively market and sell our products in our target markets. We expect to face competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document and implement and may require substantial resources to maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements for the development of our product candidates.

If we partner with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party. Our collaboration partner may not devote sufficient resources to the commercialization of our product candidates or may otherwise fail in commercialization. The terms of any collaboration or other arrangement that we establish may not be favorable to us. In addition, any collaboration that we enter into may



be unsuccessful in the development and commercialization of our product candidates. In some cases, we may be responsible for continuing preclinical and initial clinical development of a partnered product candidate or research program, and the payment we receive from our collaboration partner may be insufficient to cover the cost of this development. If we are unable to reach favorable agreements with suitable collaborators for our product candidates, we would face increased costs, we may be forced to limit the number of our product candidates we can commercially develop or the territories in which we commercialize them, we might fail to commercialize products or programs for which a suitable collaborator cannot be found, and we will need to pursue other financing alternatives. If we fail to achieve successful collaborations, our operating results and financial condition will be materially and adversely affected.

Clinical trials involve a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.

Clinical testing is expensive, can take many years to complete and its outcome is highly uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process due to inadequate performance of a drug or inadequate adherence by patients or investigators to clinical trial protocols. Pursuant to FDA guidelines, new antibiotic drugs generally must show non-inferiority or superiority to existing approved treatments in adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if such approved treatments exist.  We face these same risks for our pre-clinical and clinical product candidates.

In addition, the results of pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials despite achieving successful results in earlier stage trials. The failure to obtain positive results in any of our Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials could seriously impair the development prospects, and even prevent regulatory approval of, any of our product candidates. Even with positive clinical trial results, there is risk that regulators will not accept the clinical trial findings or will require additional trials or other data. For example, our NDAs for oral and intravenous solithromycin received complete response letters from the FDA, which stated that the FDA could not approve the NDAs in their present form and noted that additional clinical safety information and the satisfactory resolution of manufacturing facility inspection deficiencies were required before the NDAs may be considered for approval. Melinta has not been successful in acquiring sufficient funding to perform the clinical safety study necessary to support approval of solithromycin in the United States, and therefore, has decided not to execute the clinical safety study.

Further, regulatory approvals in foreign countries are subject to risks associated with different regulatory requirements, including clinical trial guidance, and regulatory schemes, including, for example, multiple country regulation within the European Union.  As a result, clinical trial results and other regulatory processes undertaken by us within the United States may not be accepted in foreign countries, which would add to the cost and time to develop our product candidates in foreign countries.

Melinta cannot be certain that its product candidates will receive regulatory approval, or that its existing products will receive regulatory approval for additional uses, or that it will receive the requested exclusivity periods.

Melinta is evaluating Baxdela in a Phase 3 clinical program for serious CABP and plans to initiate a clinical trial in patients with cUTI. Beyond the commercial launch and potential label expansion of Baxdela, Melinta will continue to pursue other pipeline opportunities. Melinta is conducting clinical studies for radezolid for the treatment of acne vulgaris, plans to deliver compounds of antibiotics for bacterial “superbugs” for human clinical trials under its ESKAPE pathogen program, and is in pre-clinical phase for its compounds in the macrolide program, which have potential to treat the bacteria typically identified in skin and lung infections. Melinta’s business is dependent in part on its ability to complete the development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize such current and future products and product candidates in a timely manner. The process to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates is long, complex, uncertain and costly.

The development of a product candidate and issues relating to its approval and sale are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States and regulatory authorities in other countries, with regulations differing from country to country. Melinta is not permitted to commercialize, market or sell Melinta’s product candidates in the United States until it receives approval of an NDA from the FDA. An NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. The NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. Melinta is currently dependent on the work conducted by contract organizations for these activities. Obtaining approval of an NDA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and may not be obtained. The FDA review process typically has defined timelines, but may take significantly longer if additional development work is required by the FDA. FDA approvals are never guaranteed. If Melinta submits an NDA to the FDA, the FDA must decide whether to accept or reject the submission for filing. Melinta cannot be certain that any submissions will be accepted for filing and review by the FDA. Even if a product is approved, the FDA may limit the indications for which the product may be marketed, include extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming post-approval clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Foreign regulatory authorities also have requirements for approval of drug candidates with which Melinta must comply prior to marketing. Obtaining regulatory approval for marketing of a product candidate in one country does not ensure that Melinta will be



able to obtain regulatory approval in other countries. In addition, delays in approvals or rejections of marketing applications in the United States or foreign countries may be based upon many factors, including:


Melinta’s inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for any indication;


the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;  


the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may make requests for additional analyses, reports, data and studies;  


the FDA’s or comparable foreign regulatory authority’s disagreement regarding Melinta’s interpretation of data and results;  


inability to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of a product candidate outweigh its safety risks;  


the potential for changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development that may render Melinta’s clinical data insufficient for approval;


inability to identify and maintain a sufficient number of trial sites, many of which may already be engaged in other clinical trial programs, including some that may be for the same indication as Melinta’s product candidates; or  


the emergence of new information regarding Melinta’s product candidates or other products.  

Compounds developed in the ESKAPE pathogen program and the macrolide program are still under preclinical development and may never advance to clinical testing or be successfully commercialized. The failure to enter clinical development and ultimately successfully commercialize one or more of the compounds could adversely affect the business and prospects of Melinta.

Under the GAIN Act, the FDA may designate a product as a QIDP.  Upon approval of a drug designated by the FDA as a QIDP, five-year NCE exclusivity, three-year exclusivity, and seven-year orphan drug exclusivity are extended by an additional five years.  In December 2013, the FDA designated Vabomere as a QIDP, and in a letter dated August 29, 2017, the FDA stated that the Vabomere application meets the criteria for the five-year GAIN exclusivity extension.  Currently, Vabomere’s application for five-year NCE exclusivity is pending before the CDER Exclusivity Board.  If the FDA does not grant Vabomere the requested NCE exclusivity and instead grants three-year exclusivity, we would still obtain our GAIN exclusivity, but our total exclusivity period would be eight years rather than ten years, which could adversely affect our business related to Vabomere.

Delays in clinical trials are common and have many causes, and any such delays could result in increased costs to us and jeopardize or delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commence product sales as currently contemplated.

We may experience delays in clinical trials of our product candidates. Our planned clinical trials might not begin on time, may be interrupted or delayed once commenced, might need to be redesigned, might not enroll a sufficient number of patients or might not be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including the following:


delays in obtaining regulatory approval to commence a trial;


imposition of a clinical hold following an inspection of our clinical trial operations or trial sites by the FDA or other regulatory authorities;


delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites;


delays in obtaining required institutional review board, or IRB, approval at each site;


delays in identifying, recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators;


delays in recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;


delays in having patients complete participation in a trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;


clinical sites dropping out of a trial to the detriment of enrollment;


time required to add new sites;


delays in obtaining sufficient supplies of clinical trial materials, including suitable active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, whether of our product candidates or comparator drugs; or


delays resulting from negative or equivocal findings of the data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, for a trial.



Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. In addition, the timing of our clinical trials may be dependent on specific disease seasonality. We could encounter delays in our ongoing and future clinical trials of products if participating physician investigators encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of any product in lieu of prescribing approved antibiotics that have established safety and efficacy profiles. Any of these delays in completing our clinical trials could increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

Melinta’s approved products or product candidates may have undesirable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval, or if approval is received, require them to be taken off the market, require them to include safety warnings, become subject to FDA required risk evaluation and mitigation strategies or other remediation activities.

If any of Melinta’s approved products or product candidates that receive marketing approval and Melinta or another party later identifies undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products:


regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, specific warnings, a contraindication or field alerts to physicians and pharmacies;  


Melinta may be required to change the way the product is administered, conduct additional clinical trials or change the labeling of the product;


Melinta may be subject to limitations on how it may promote the product;


regulatory authorities may require Melinta to take its approved product off the market;


Melinta may be subject to litigation or product liability claims;


Melinta’s reputation may suffer;


relationships with Melinta’s licensing partners may be harmed; and


sales of the product may decrease significantly or fail to gain market acceptance.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be delayed in obtaining, or may ultimately not be able to obtain, regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our product candidates.

We have relied, and plan to continue to rely, on CROs to recruit patients, monitor and manage data for our on-going clinical programs, as well as for the execution of our pre-clinical and non-clinical studies. We control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities; nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is 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 the FDA’s cGCPs which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA for all of our products in clinical development. The FDA enforces these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before deciding whether to approve our product candidates. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with cGCPs. In addition, to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any product candidate to a statistically significant degree CROs conducting our clinical trials abroad will require an adequately large number of test subjects. Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or recruit a sufficient number of patients, we may have to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

In addition, our CROs are not our employees and we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our on-going clinical, non-clinical and pre-clinical programs. Our CROs may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could impede their ability to devote appropriate time to our clinical programs. If our 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 or 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 or successfully commercialize product candidates that we seek to develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for these product candidates that we seek to develop would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed or ended.



We typically engage one or more CROs on a project-by-project basis for each study or trial. While we have developed and plan to maintain our relationships with CROs that we have previously engaged, we also expect to enter into agreements with other CROs to obtain additional resources and expertise in an attempt to accelerate our progress with regard to on-going clinical, non-clinical and pre-clinical programs. Switching or entering into new relationships with CROs involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Although we try to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, we may 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, results of operations or prospects.

We are obligated to provide Toyama with clinical and commercial supply of solithromycin at prices determined by our contract, which could negatively impact our results of operations in the event we cannot provide those supplies on our own, have to purchase them outside of our contracted suppliers or are required to purchase them at a price higher than which we can resell them to Toyama. To provide this supply, we entered into a supply agreement with Fujifilm, which contains a minimum purchase requirement, which if triggered, could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.  Further, if the Fujifilm plant is successfully registered and we never purchase product from Fujifilm, we could be required to reimburse Fujifilm for up to $18 million.

Pursuant to the terms of our supply agreement with Toyama, we are the exclusive supplier (with certain limitations) to Toyama and its sublicensees of API for solithromycin for use in licensed products in Japan, as well as the exclusive supplier to Toyama and its sublicensees of finished forms of solithromycin to be used in clinical trials in Japan. Pursuant to the supply agreement, Toyama will pay us for such clinical supply of finished product and all supplies of API for solithromycin for any purpose, other than the manufacture of products for commercial sale in Japan, at prices equal to our costs. All API for solithromycin supplied by us to Toyama for use in the manufacture of finished product for commercial sale in Japan will be ordered from us at prices determined by our contract with Toyama, and which may, depending on such costs, equal, exceed, or be less than such costs. The supply agreement will continue until the expiration or termination of the license agreement. In the event we cannot provide Toyama’s supplies under our own contracts with manufacturers, we would have to either reduce our own supply of solithromycin or purchase it outside of our contracted manufacturers, which would negatively impact our results of operations. In January 2016, we entered into an API supply agreement with Fujifilm to provide a supply source in Japan to meet our obligations under the supply agreement with Toyama, but circumstances could occur that might render this source insufficient for our purposes. In the event that supply validation studies are completed and Fujifilm has constructed a facility to provide us the supply, we may be subject to a minimum purchase requirement for a period of time that could run to an aggregated approximately $80 million, although such expense would be offset by sales to Toyama, if any.  If the Fujifilm facility is validated and we fail to order product, we could be required to reimburse Fujifilm for the cost of the plant up to $18 million.

Whether our current products or product candidates are successful or not, our future growth will depend in part on our ability to identify, develop, acquire or in-license products and if we do not successfully identify develop, acquire or in-license additional products or product candidates or integrate them into our operations, we may have limited growth opportunities.

An important part of our business strategy is to continue to develop a pipeline of product candidates by developing, acquiring or in-licensing products, businesses or technologies that we believe are a strategic fit with our focus developing anti-infectives to treat infectious diseases. However, these business activities may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:


inability to successfully identity new products and product candidates;


difficulty or inability to secure financing to fund development activities for such development, acquisition or in-licensed products or technologies;


incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of securities to pay for development, acquisition or in-licensing of new products;


disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention;


higher than expected development, acquisition or in-license and integration costs;


exposure to unknown liabilities;


difficulty and cost in combining the operations and personnel of any acquired businesses with our operations and personnel;


inability to retain key employees of any acquired businesses;


difficulty in managing multiple product development programs; and


inability to successfully develop new product candidates or clinical failure of new product candidates.



We have limited resources to identify and execute the development, acquisition or in-licensing of products, businesses and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure. We may compete with larger pharmaceutical companies and other competitors in our efforts to establish new collaborations and in-licensing opportunities. These competitors likely will have access to greater financial resources than us and may have greater expertise in identifying and evaluating new opportunities. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential development, acquisitions or in-licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts.

We may need to grow our organization if we make progress on the development of any of our product candidates, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of March 2, 2018, we had approximately 300 employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies progress and develop, we may need to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources, including sales and marketing resources. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from their day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Future growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage any future growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth in our organization.

Comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, the US government signed into law comprehensive tax legislation, referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act). The Tax Act introduced significant changes to the US tax laws.

The Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including (i) reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%; (ii) limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses); (iii)  limitation of the deduction for net operating losses to 80% of current year taxable income in respect of losses arising in taxable years beginning after 2017; (iv) elimination of net operating loss carrybacks; (v) one time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated; (vi) immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time; and (vii) modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits (including reducing the business tax credit for certain clinical testing expenses incurred in the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases or conditions generally referred to as “orphan drugs”). Our federal net operating loss carryovers for taxable years beginning after 2017 will be carried forward indefinitely pursuant to the Tax Act.

The Tax Act did not have a material impact on our financial statements because our deferred temporary differences are fully offset by a valuation allowance and we do not have any significant offshore earnings from which to record the mandatory transition tax. However, given the significant complexity of the Tax Act, anticipated guidance from the US Treasury about implementing the Tax Act, and the potential for additional guidance from the SEC or the FASB related to the Tax Act, these estimates may be adjusted during the measurement period. We continue to examine the impact the Tax Act may have on our business. Notwithstanding the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the Tax Act is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Industry

Bacteria might develop resistance to our products or product candidates, which would decrease the efficacy and commercial viability of that product.

Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics over time due to the genetic mutation of the bacteria. Many current and previous antibiotics have suffered reduced efficacy over time due to the development of resistance to such drugs. It is probable that, over time, bacteria will also develop resistance to our products and our drug candidates. If resistance were to develop rapidly to our products or our drug candidates, this would reduce the commercial potential for our business.

We are subject to existing and potential additional regulation and government inquiry, which can impose burdens on our operations and narrow the markets for our products.

We are subject, both directly and indirectly, to the adverse impact of existing and potential future government regulation of our operations and markets. Our products and product candidates are, and any future approved product candidates will be, subject to regulation by the FDA and equivalent foreign regulatory authorities. These regulations govern a wide variety of product related activities, from quality management, design and development to labeling, manufacturing, promotion, sales and distribution. If we or any of our suppliers or distributors fail to comply with the FDA and other applicable regulatory requirements, or are perceived to



potentially have failed to comply, we may face, among other things, warning letters; adverse publicity affecting both us and our customers; investigations or notices of non-compliance, fines, injunctions, and civil penalties; import or export restrictions; partial suspensions or total shutdown of production facilities or the imposition of operating restrictions; increased difficulty in obtaining required FDA clearances or approvals or foreign equivalents; seizures or recalls of its products or those of its customers; or the inability to sell such products. Any such FDA actions could disrupt our business and operations, lead to significant remedial costs and have a material adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations.

We face extensive regulatory requirements and our products may face future development and regulatory difficulties.

The FDA may impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance. Our products are subject to ongoing FDA requirements governing the labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, advertising, promotion, record keeping and reporting of safety and other post-market information. The holder of an approved NDA is subject to obligations to monitor and report adverse events and instances of the failure of a product to meet the specifications in the NDA. Application holders must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Application holders must also submit advertising and other promotional material to the FDA and report on ongoing clinical trials. Legal requirements have also been enacted to require disclosure of clinical trial results on publicly available databases.

In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations. If we or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing, requiring new warnings or other labeling changes to limit use of the drug, requiring that we conduct additional clinical trials, imposing new monitoring requirements, or requiring that we establish risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws. The distribution of product samples to physicians must comply with the requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act. Government pricing and rebate programs must comply with statutory and regulatory requirements. Our products that are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration are subject to additional requirements. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. If we or our third party collaborators fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:


conduct an investigation into our practices and any alleged violation of law;


issue warning letters or untitled letters asserting that we are in violation of the law;


seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;


suspend or withdraw regulatory approval;


suspend any ongoing clinical trials;


refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to applications filed by us;


suspend or impose restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements;


seize or detain products, refuse to permit the import or export of products, or require us to initiate a product recall; or


refuse to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may force us to expend significant amounts of time and money and may significantly inhibit our ability to bring to market or continue to market our products and generate revenues. Similar regulations apply in foreign jurisdictions.

Because we may not be able to obtain necessary regulatory clearances or approvals for some of our products or product candidates, we may not generate revenue in the amounts we expect, or in the amounts necessary to continue our business.

All of our proposed and existing products are subject to regulation in the U.S. by the FDA and/or other domestic and international governmental, public health agencies, regulatory bodies or non-governmental organizations. In particular, we are subject to strict governmental controls on the development, manufacture, labeling, distribution and marketing of our products and product candidates. The process of obtaining required approvals or clearances varies according to the nature of and uses for, a specific product or product candidate. These processes can involve lengthy and detailed laboratory testing, human clinical trials, sampling activities, and other costly, time-consuming procedures. The submission of an application to a regulatory authority does not guarantee that the authority will grant an approval or clearance for a product or product candidate. Each authority may impose its own requirements and can delay or refuse to grant approval or clearance, even though a product or product candidate has been approved in another country.



The time taken to obtain approval or clearance varies depending on the nature of the application and may result in the passage of a significant period of time from the date of submission of the application. Delays in the approval or clearance processes increase the risk that we will not succeed in introducing or selling the subject products or product candidates, and we may be required to abandon a proposed product or product candidate after devoting substantial time and resources to its development.

Changes in domestic and foreign government regulations could increase our costs and could require us to undergo additional trials or procedures, or could make it impractical or impossible for us to market our products for certain uses, in certain markets, or at all.

Changes in government regulations may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations because we may have to incur additional expenses if we are required to change or implement new testing, manufacturing and control procedures. If we are required to devote resources to develop such new procedures, we may not have sufficient resources to devote to research and development, marketing, or other activities that are critical to our business. 

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or recall or withdrawal from the market, and we may therefore be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our drug candidates, when and if any of them are approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such candidate, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying labeling may limit the approved use of our product, which could limit its sales.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of prescription products such as antibiotics to ensure such products are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the FDCA relating to the promotion of prescription products may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may have negative consequences, including:


restrictions on such products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes;


restrictions on the labeling or marketing of a product;


restrictions on product distribution or use;


requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;


warning or untitled letters;


recall or withdrawal of the products from the market;


refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;


clinical holds;


fines, restitution or disgorgement of revenue or profit;


suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;


refusal to permit the import or export of our products or components of our products;


product seizure; or


injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.



We are subject to healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

We are subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our product candidate, if approved. Our future arrangements with third-party payors will 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 product candidate, if we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:


The federal healthcare anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.


The federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, including those from civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government.


The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.


The federal false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.


The federal transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the "Sunshine Act," under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, require manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report on an annual basis to the Department of Health and Human Services information related to transfers of value to certain healthcare professionals, teaching hospitals and physician ownership and investment interests.


Analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws and transparency laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and drug pricing.

Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do 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, including anticipated activities to be conducted by our sales team, were 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 and exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Future legislation, and/or regulations and policies adopted by the FDA or other regulatory health authorities may increase the time and cost required for us to conduct and complete clinical trials for product candidates that we develop.

The FDA has established regulations, guidelines and policies to govern the drug development and approval process, as have foreign regulatory authorities. Any change in regulatory requirements due to the adoption by the FDA and/or foreign regulatory authorities of new legislation, regulations, or policies may require us to amend existing clinical trial protocols or add new clinical trials to comply with these changes. Such amendments to existing protocols and/or clinical trial applications or the need for new ones, may significantly impact the cost, timing and completion of the clinical trials.

In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process, particularly in our areas of focus, may significantly delay or prevent regulatory approval, as well as impose more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.



If we market any of our product candidates that receive approval in a manner that violates applicable health care laws, including laws prohibiting “off-label” promotion, disclosure laws or other similar laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

Any regulatory approval of drug products is limited to those specific diseases and indications for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by the FDA. In addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product also requires FDA approval. Physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments, and such off-label uses by healthcare professionals are common. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use. A company that is found to have promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies, as well as criminal sanctions. If we are not able to obtain FDA approval for any desired future indications for any marketed products, our ability to market and sell such products will be limited and our business may be adversely affected.

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities permit companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading and non-promotional scientific exchange concerning their products. In addition, recent FDA guidance suggests that there are circumstances in which the FDA would not object to the promotion of certain information that is not included in the approved labeling, provided that this information is consistent with the approved labeling and otherwise complies with applicable regulations.

In addition, in recent years, several states and localities have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state or make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials, health care provider payments and other activities. Additionally, the federal government has enacted the Physician Payment Sunshine Act which requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to report annually to the Secretary of Health and Human Services payments or other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians and teaching hospitals. We are required to report certain information with respect to such payments, which will be made publicly available on a searchable website. We may also have to comply with similar reporting obligations in foreign countries. We will need to expend significant efforts to maintain and enhance such reporting systems and processes in order to comply with these requirements. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements would result in significant civil monetary penalties. The ACA also includes various provisions designed to strengthen significantly fraud and abuse enforcement, such as increased funding for enforcement efforts and the lowering of the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback statute and criminal health care fraud statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it.

Even if we obtain FDA approval of a given product candidate, we may fail to obtain approval for or be able to commercialize such product outside of the United States, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential. If foreign approval is obtained, there are risks in conducting business in international markets.

In order to market a product outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approvals could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and require additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays.

In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or any foreign country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in a foreign country or to obtain and maintain required approvals, our potential market for products will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

If we obtain approval to commercialize any of our products or product candidates outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If any of our products or product candidates are approved outside the United States, we have entered into and will likely enter into additional agreements with third parties to commercialize such product outside the United States. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to entering into or maintaining these international business relationships, including:


different regulatory requirements for drug approvals in foreign countries;


differing U.S. and foreign drug import and export rules;  


reduced protection for intellectual property rights in foreign countries;  




unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements;


different reimbursement systems;


economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;  


compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;


foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes;  


foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenues, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;  


workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;  


production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad;  


potential liability resulting from development work conducted by these distributors; and


business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, or natural disasters.

Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, as well as the anti-bribery laws of the nations in which we conduct business, could subject us to penalties and other adverse consequences.

We are subject to the FCPA, which generally prohibits U.S. companies from engaging in bribery or other prohibited payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business and requires companies to maintain accurate books and records and internal controls. In addition, we are subject to other anti-bribery laws of the nations in which we conduct business that apply similar prohibitions as the FCPA. Our employees or other agents may engage in prohibited conduct without our knowledge under our policies and procedures and the FCPA and other anti-bribery laws that we may be subject to for which we may be held responsible. If our employees or other agents are found to have engaged in such practices, we could suffer severe penalties and other consequences that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Product liability lawsuits could divert our resources, result in substantial liabilities and reduce the commercial potential of our products.

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


decreased demand for our products or product candidates that we may develop;


loss of revenue;


injury to our reputation;


withdrawal of clinical trial participants;


initiation of investigations by regulators;


costs to defend the related litigation;


a diversion of management’s time and our resources;


substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;


product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;


exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources;


the inability to commercialize our products or product candidates; and


a decline in our stock price.



The cost of any product liability litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. In addition, inability to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our products, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We are subject to various environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, in connection with which we could become subject to liabilities, fines, penalties or other sanctions, or incur costs, that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment, release and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time our operations involve and may, in the future, involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes, we cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our handling, use, storage, treatment, release or disposal of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability, which in certain cases could be joint and several, could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs, civil or criminal fines, penalties, or other sanctions for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental health and safety laws and regulations, which have tended to become more stringent over time. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims.

If we are not successful in retaining or attracting as necessary highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries depends in large part on our ability to retain or attract as necessary highly qualified managerial, scientific, medical and sales and marketing personnel. Competition for skilled personnel is very intense and competition for experienced scientists may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.  Our current levels of total compensation may be below the level of companies who seek to hire our current employees, impacting our ability to retain members of our team. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and medical teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers or other key employees could potentially harm our business, operating results or financial condition. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled scientific and medical personnel.

Other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies with which we compete for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and longer histories than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high quality candidates than what we offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to discover, develop and commercialize drug candidates will be limited.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act could have a material adverse effect on our business and share price.

Due to factors arising from the relatively recent closing of our reverse merger transaction with Cempra, Inc., we were not required to evaluate our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(a) (“Section 404”) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes Oxley Act”) for the year ended December 31, 2017. See “Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting” for further information. We anticipate being required to meet these standards in the course of preparing our financial statements as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2018, and our management will be required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for such year. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation.

In connection with our implementation of the necessary procedures and practices related to internal control over financial reporting, we may identify deficiencies that we may not be able to remedy in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes Oxley Act for compliance with the requirements of Section 404. In addition, we may encounter problems or delays in completing the implementation of any requested improvements and receiving a favorable attestation in connection with the attestation provided by our independent registered public accounting firm. In the event we are un able to receive a favorable attestation report in a timely manner, 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 agencies, which could require additional financial and management resources. Additionally, we will be unable



to issue securities in the public markets through the use of a shelf registration if we are not in compliance with Section 404. Furthermore, failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on our business and share price and could limit our ability to report our financial results accurately and timely.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, 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. Employee misconduct could 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 Conduct, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, 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 be in compliance with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

Our ability to pursue the development and commercialization of certain of our products depends upon the continuation of certain licenses.

We rely on certain licenses to certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our technology and products.

Baxdela. Our license agreement with Wakunaga Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides us with a worldwide exclusive license to develop and sell Baxdela. In particular, we obtained an exclusive license to certain patents, patent applications and proprietary information, including patents and proprietary information owned by AbbVie Inc. and licensed to Wakunaga, covering the composition of matter to Baxdela, its manufacturing process, salt forms, pharmaceutical compositions containing Baxdela, methods of using Baxdela, and other proprietary information. Our license agreement with Wakunaga further grants us non-exclusive rights to other patents and applications. The license requires us to make certain milestone and royalty payments to Wakunaga. If we are unable to make any of these required payments under the license agreement, or if we do not use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain development and commercialization milestones for Baxdela within the timeframes required by the license agreement, our rights to develop and commercialize Baxdela could be terminated. In addition, Wakunaga may terminate the license agreement on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis based upon our material breach of the license agreement if not cured within 90 days from written notice of breach. If our license agreement with Wakunaga were terminated, we would lose our rights to develop and commercialize Baxdela, and would have to grant Wakunaga a perpetual, non-royalty bearing, exclusive license to our proprietary information reasonably necessary to commercialize Baxdela. Loss of our license agreement would materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and future prospects.

Orbactiv.  As a result of the IDB Transaction, we are a party to a license agreement with Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”). Under the terms of the agreement, we have exclusive worldwide rights to patents and other intellectual property related to Orbactiv and other compounds claimed in the licensed patent rights. We are required to make payments to Eli Lilly upon reaching specified regulatory and sales milestones. In addition, we are obligated to pay royalties based on net sales of products containing Orbactiv or the other compounds in any jurisdiction in which we hold license rights to a valid patent. The royalty rate due to Eli Lilly on sales increases as annual sales of these products increase. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain regulatory approval for Orbactiv in the United States and to commercialize Orbactiv in the United States. If we breach that obligation, Eli Lilly may terminate our license in the United States, license rights to Orbactiv could revert to Eli Lilly and we would lose our rights to develop and commercialize Orbactiv. The license rights under the agreement remain in force, on a country-by-country basis, until there is no valid patent in such country and our obligation to pay royalties ceases in that country. Either party may terminate the agreement upon an uncured material breach by the other party. In addition, either party may terminate the agreement upon the other party’s insolvency or bankruptcy.



In addition, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:


the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;  


the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on or misappropriate the intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;  


the sublicensing of patent and other rights under the license agreement;  


our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;


the payment of royalty fees, milestones or other costs under the license agreements; and


the priority of invention of patented technology.

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligation under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our products and product candidates are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain additional patents and protect our existing patent position as well as our ability to maintain adequate protection of other intellectual property for current and any future products in the United States and other countries. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies are highly uncertain. The legal principles applicable to patents are in transition due to changing court precedent and legislative action and we cannot assure you that the historical legal standards surrounding questions of validity will continue to be applied or that current defenses relating to issued patents in these fields will be sufficient in the future. Changes in patent laws in the United States such as the America Invents Act of 2011 may affect the scope, strength and enforceability of our patent rights or the nature of proceedings which may be brought by us related to our patent rights. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we may encounter significant problems in protecting our proprietary rights in these countries. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our proprietary technologies any future products are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets.

These risks include the possibility that:


the patent applications that we licensed or have filed on our own may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in foreign countries;


patents issued or licensed to us or our partners may be challenged, discovered to have been issued on the basis of insufficient or incorrect information and/or held to be invalid or unenforceable;


the scope of any patent protection may be too narrow to exclude other competitors from developing or designing around these patents;


we or our licensors were not the first to make the inventions covered by each of our issued patents and pending patent applications;


we or our licensors were not the first to file patent applications for these inventions;


we may fail to comply with procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process, which can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights;


future product candidates may not be patentable;


others will claim rights or ownership with regard to patents and other proprietary rights which we hold or license;




delays in development, testing, clinical trials and regulatory review may reduce the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection; and


we may fail to timely apply for patents on our technologies, products or product candidates.

While we apply for patents covering both our technologies, products, and our potential products, as we deem appropriate, many biopharmaceutical companies and university and research institutions already have filed patent applications or have received patents in our areas of product development. These entities’ applications, patents and other intellectual property rights may conflict with patent applications to which we have rights and could prevent us from obtaining patents or could call into question the validity of any of our patents, if issued, or could otherwise adversely affect our ability to develop, manufacture or commercialize antibiotic candidates. In addition, if third parties file patent applications in the technologies that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference, derivation or other proceedings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) or applicable foreign patent regulatory authorities, as applicable, to determine our rights in the invention, which may be time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, issued patents may be challenged during post-grant proceedings brought by a third party or the USPTO, or in foreign countries, or in the courts. These proceedings may result in loss of patent claims or adverse changes to the scope of the claims. Patent applications may also be challenged during pre-grant proceedings. If we are unsuccessful in defending any such opposition, only part of such patent would issue or the patent might not issue at all.

If we or our licensors or partners fail to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products and product candidates, or our proprietary technologies and their uses, companies may be dissuaded from collaborating with us. In such event, our ability to commercialize our products and product candidates may be threatened, we could lose our competitive advantage and the competition we face could increase, all of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, litigation will be costly and time consuming and could prevent us or delay us from developing or commercializing our products and product candidates.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of other parties and not breaching any collaboration or other agreements we have entered into with regard to our technologies, products and product candidates. Numerous third-party U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending applications exist in the areas of antibacterial treatment, including compounds, formulations, treatment methods and synthetic processes that may be applied towards the synthesis of antibiotics. Although no legal action has been commenced or threatened against us by a third party for infringing intellectual property rights, we cannot provide assurances that we or our partners will be free to manufacture or market our product candidates as planned, or that we or our licensors’ and partners’ patents will not be opposed or litigated by third parties.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving intellectual property in the biopharmaceutical industry generally. If a third party asserts that we infringe its patents or other proprietary rights, we could face a number of risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, including:


infringement and other intellectual property claims, which would be costly and time consuming to defend, whether or not we are ultimately successful, which in turn could delay the regulatory approval process, consume our capital and divert management’s attention from our business;


substantial damages for past infringement, which we may have to pay if a court determines that our products, product candidates or technologies infringe a competitor’s patent or other proprietary rights;


a court prohibiting us from selling or licensing our technologies, products or future products unless the third party licenses its patents or other proprietary rights to us on commercially reasonable terms, which it is not required to do;


if a license is available from a third party, we may have to pay substantial royalties or lump sum payments or grant cross licenses to our patents or other proprietary rights to obtain that license; and


redesigning our products or product candidates so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time.

Although we are not currently party to any legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property, in the future, third parties may file claims asserting that our technologies, processes or products infringe on their intellectual property. We cannot predict whether third parties will assert these claims against us or our partners or against the licensors of technology licensed to us, or whether those claims will harm our business. In addition, the outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. If we or our partners were to face infringement claims or challenges by third parties relating to our product candidates, an adverse outcome could subject us to significant liabilities to such third parties, and force us or our partners to curtail or cease the development of some or all of our products and product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.



We may be required to file lawsuits or take other actions to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive and time consuming.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally.

In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents, or those of our licensors, do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents, or those of our licensors, at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications, or those of our licensors, at risk of not issuing. Moreover, we may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, if securities analysts or investors perceive public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments to be negative, the price of our common stock could be adversely affected. The occurrence of any of the above could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of certain information, the value of our products and product candidates and technology could be materially adversely affected.

We rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological advancement to develop and maintain our competitive position. To protect this competitive position, we regularly enter into confidentiality and proprietary information agreements with third parties, including employees, independent contractors, suppliers and collaborators. We cannot, however, ensure that these protective arrangements will be honored by third parties, and we may not have adequate remedies if these arrangements are breached. In addition, enforcement of claims that a third party has illegally obtained and is using trade secrets, know-how and technological advancements is expensive, time consuming and uncertain. Non-U.S. courts are sometimes less willing than U.S. courts to protect this information. Moreover, our trade secrets, know-how and technological advancements may otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors in a manner providing us with no practical recourse against the competing parties. If any such events were to occur, they could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We have not yet registered our trademarks in all of our potential markets, and failure to secure those registrations could adversely affect our business.

We have filed trademark applications with the USPTO for our marks, including “MELINTA,” “MELINTA THERAPEUTICS,” “MELINTA THE ANTIBIOTICS COMPANY” and “BAXDELA” for use in connection with our goods and services. The MELINTA, MELINTA THERAPEUTICS and MELINTA THE ANTIBIOTICS COMPANY marks have matured to registration in the United States. We also have filed and anticipate filing foreign trademark applications for the same marks for goods and services outside the United States, and have obtained registrations for some trademarks in jurisdictions outside the United States.  The registrations will be subject to use and maintenance requirements. We may not register all of our trademarks in all of our potential markets, and it is also possible that there are names or symbols other than the foregoing that may be protectable marks for which we have not sought registration, and failure to secure those registrations could adversely affect our business. We cannot assure you that opposition or cancellation proceedings will not be filed against our trademarks or that our trademarks would survive such proceedings.

As a result of the IDB Transaction, we have acquired trademarks and trademark applications filed with the USPTO or other jurisdictions for additional marks, including “ORBACTIV,” “TARGANTA,” “VAYMERIS,” “VABOMERE,” “MERVABIA,” “BAVREM,” “CARBAVANCE,” for use in connection with our goods and services. We have also acquired a license to the “MINOCIN” mark. The ORBACTIV and CARBAVANCE marks have matured to registration in the United States. We also have filed and anticipate filing foreign trademark applications for the same marks for goods and services outside the United States, and have obtained registrations for some trademarks in jurisdictions outside the United States.  The registrations will be subject to use and maintenance requirements. We may not register all of our trademarks in all of our potential markets, and it is also possible that there are names or symbols other than the foregoing that may be protectable marks for which we have not sought registration, and failure to secure those registrations could adversely affect our business. We cannot assure you that opposition or cancellation proceedings will not be filed against our trademarks or that our trademarks would survive such proceedings.



Any of our existing or future trademark applications in the United States and any other jurisdictions where we may file may not be allowed for registration, and registered trademarks may not be obtained, maintained or enforced. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings.

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

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Such claims may lead to material costs for us, or an inability to protect or use valuable intellectual property rights, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Melinta relies on certain third-party software in its business, including in the operation of its research and development operations, and the loss of such rights or the disruption of the software could result in a material disruption of its product development programs.

Melinta licenses and uses certain third-party software, any third-party software may include bugs or failures, may fail to continue to be compatible with Melinta’s systems, as necessary, or may be found to infringe other third-party rights, such that Melinta may be unable to continue to use the software for its current purposes. While alternative software is commercially available, implementing new software and related systems could have a material impact on Melinta’s business and specifically its research and development operations.

Melinta’s internal computer systems, or those of its CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of its product development programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, Melinta’s internal computer systems and those of its CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage or disruption from computer viruses, software bugs, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication, equipment and electrical failures. While Melinta has not, to its knowledge, experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in its operations, it could result in a material disruption of its programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing clinical trials for any of its product candidates could result in delays in its regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase its costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to its data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure or theft of confidential or proprietary information, Melinta could incur liability, the further development of its product candidates could be delayed or its competitive position could be compromised.

Our agreement with BARDA includes provisions that grant rights and remedies to the U.S. government that, if incurred, may make it more costly and difficult for us to successfully market Vabomere and, in certain circumstances, may allow the government to seek title to the work performed under the BARDA agreement.

In February 2014, our subsidiary, Rempex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., entered into a cost-sharing agreement with BARDA to support the development of Vabomere, which includes provisions that reflect the U.S. government’s substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts.  These rights and remedies include powers of the government to claim rights to data, including intellectual property rights, developed under such contracts under certain circumstances.  The government may also impose U.S. manufacturing requirements for products that embody inventions conceived or first reduced to practice under such contracts. We may not have the right to prohibit the U.S. government from using certain technologies funded by the government and developed by us related to Vabomere, and we may not be able to prohibit third party companies, including our competitors, from using those technologies in providing products and services to the U.S. government. The U.S. government generally takes the position that it has the right to royalty-free use of technologies that are developed under U.S. government contracts.  Failure to comply with provisions within the BARDA contract may make it more costly and difficult for us to successfully conduct our business.  In addition, certain provisions of the BARDA contract may allow in some circumstances the government to seek title to certain inventions made in the performance of work under the contract.



Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Our shareholders may sell a significant portion of our common stock into the market, which could cause our stock price to decline.

The shares issued to the pre-closing shareholders of the former Melinta prior to its merger with Cempra, representing a total of 11,433,611 shares, become eligible for resale in May 2018. In addition, we have re-sale shelf registration statements on file with the SEC pursuant to which (i) Medicines may sell an aggregate of 3,313,702 shares of common stock (1,656,851 of which are subject to a contractual lock-up through July 2018), (ii) affiliates of Deerfield may sell an aggregate of 6,920,714 shares of common stock (3,792,868 of which are issuable upon the exercise of warrants at an exercise price of $16.50 per share) and (iii) Vatera and certain other stockholders may sell an aggregate of 2,662,739 shares of common stock which they purchased in the equity financing of the IDB Transaction. The sale of a substantial number of our shares within a short period of time could cause our stock price to decline, make it more difficult for us to raise funds through future offerings of our common stock or acquire other businesses using our common stock as consideration.

We are subject to a putative securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, which may require significant management time and attention and significant legal expenses and may result in unfavorable outcomes, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

As discussed in Item 1, on November 3, 2017, the Company merged with Cempra, Inc. in a business combination. Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.) (for purposes of this and the following descriptions of legal proceedings, “Cempra”) and certain of Cempra’s officers as defendants.  Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22, 2016 and December 30, 2016, respectively. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July 6, 2017, the court consolidated the three lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the consolidated case. On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiff alleges violations of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants between July 7, 2015 and November 4, 2016 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of Cempra’s common stock during the Class Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the court. On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 13, 2017, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 4, 2017, the defendants filed a reply brief. The motion remains pending and oral argument has yet to be scheduled.

On December 21, 2016, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was commenced in the North Carolina Durham County Superior Court, naming certain of Cempra’s former and current officers and directors as defendants and Cempra as a nominal defendant, and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste (the “December 2016 Action”).  A substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the North Carolina Durham County Superior Court on February 16, 2017 (the “February 2017 Action”).  The complaints are based on similar allegations as asserted in the securities lawsuits described above, and seek unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees.  Both cases were served and transferred to the North Carolina Business Court as mandatory complex business cases.  The Business Court consolidated the February 2017 Action into the December 2016 Action and appointed counsel for the plaintiff in the December 2016 Action as lead counsel.  On July 6, 2017, the court stayed the action pending resolution of the putative securities class action.  That stay has since been lifted. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2017, and was required to file a further amended complaint by February 6, 2018. On February 6, 2018, the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint.

On January 3, 2018, the plaintiff who commenced the February 2017 Action, which was subsequently consolidated into the December 2016 Action, transmitted to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Cempra a litigation demand (the “Demand”).  The Demand requested that Cempra’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) “commence an independent investigation into the matters raised” in the complaint filed in the February 2017 Action and the Demand, “take any and all appropriate steps for Cempra to recover, through litigation if necessary, the damages proximately caused by the directors' and officers' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty,” and “implement corporate governance enhancements to prevent recurrence of the alleged wrongdoing.”  The Board has not yet formally responded to the Demand.

On July 31, 2017, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming certain of Cempra’s former and current officers and directors as defendants and Cempra as nominal defendant, and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. The complaint is based on similar allegations as asserted in the putative securities class action described above, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. On October 23, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay, the complaint, which was supported by an opening brief filed on November 9, 2017. On January 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed his answering brief in opposition to the defendants’ motion.  The defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on February 7, 2018.  The motion remains pending.



On September 15, 2017, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming certain of Cempra’s former and current officers and directors as defendants and Cempra as nominal defendant, and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint is based on similar allegations as asserted in the putative securities class action described above, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. . On December 1, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to stay the shareholder derivative lawsuit pending resolution of the putative securities class action, which stipulation was ordered by the court on December 11, 2017.

On September 27, 2017 and October 6, 2017, putative class action complaints were filed against Cempra, members of its board of directors and Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. (now known as Melinta Subsidiary Corp.) (for the purposes of the description of these legal proceedings, “Melinta”) on behalf of the public stockholders of Cempra in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaints allege that the preliminary proxy statement issued in connection with the proposed merger between Cempra and Melinta omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, rendering the preliminary proxy statement false and misleading. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs and the defendants executed a settlement agreement that resolved the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice to any other member of the putative class. Defendants have agreed to pay attorneys’ fees of $262,500.00 in connection with settlement of the actions.

While we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend the cases, these lawsuits could divert management’s attention from our ordinary business operations.  Further, the outcome of these proceedings is difficult to predict and quantify, and the defense against the proceedings could be costly. The ultimate resolution of these cases could result in payments of monetary damages or other costs, materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, or adversely affect our reputation, and consequently, could negatively impact the trading price of our common stock.

We have various insurance policies related to the risks associated with our business, including directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that our insurance coverage will be sufficient or that our insurance carriers will cover all claims in that litigation. If we are not successful in our defense of the claims asserted in these cases and those claims are not covered by insurance or exceed our insurance coverage, we may have to pay damage awards, indemnify our officers from damage awards that may be entered against them and pay the costs and expenses incurred in defense of, or in any settlement of, such claims.

In addition, it is possible that similar lawsuits may be filed in the future in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants, in which case we could be similarly materially and adversely affected by such additional litigation.

The trading market for our common stock may not provide our shareholders with adequate liquidity.

Our common stock has at times been thinly traded and may be so again. We cannot assure you that an active trading market for our common stock will be maintained. You may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at the market price if trading in our common stock is not active.

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

Our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors.  In addition, the stock market in general, and the NASDAQ Global Market and the stock of 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.

Our principal shareholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and are able to exert significant control over matters subject to shareholder approval.

As of March 2, 2018, our principal shareholders, executive officers, directors and entities affiliated with certain of our directors beneficially owned approximately 60.4% of our outstanding voting common stock. Therefore, these shareholders have the ability to influence us through their ownership position. These shareholders may be able to determine the outcome of all matters requiring shareholder approval. For example, these shareholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our shareholders.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital shares. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to support our operations and finance the growth and development of our business. We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. In addition, under our credit agreement with Deerfield, we are prohibited from declaring or paying any cash dividends. Any future determination related to dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on then-existing conditions, including our financial condition, operating results, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.



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

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if an acquisition would benefit our shareholders, and could also make it more difficult to remove our current management. These provisions include:


authorizing the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock, the terms of which may be established and shares of which may be issued without shareholder approval;


limiting the removal of directors by the shareholders;


creating a staggered board of directors;


prohibiting shareholder action by written consent, thereby requiring all shareholder actions to be taken at a meeting of shareholders;


eliminating the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting of shareholders; and


establishing advance notice requirements for nominations for election to the board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon at shareholder meetings.

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for shareholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with an interested shareholder for a period of three years following the date on which the shareholder became an interested shareholder, unless such transactions are approved by the board of directors. This provision could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing someone from acquiring us or merging with us, whether or not it is desired by or beneficial to our shareholders. Any provision of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our shareholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments


Item 2. Properties

We lease approximately 17,031 square feet of office space in Lincolnshire, Illinois for our principal administrative facility, approximately 27,613 square feet of office and laboratory space in New Haven, Connecticut for our principal research facility, and approximately 32,182 square feet of office space in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The leases expire in June 2022, August 2021 and March 2021, respectively.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The material set forth in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated herein by reference.  

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable





Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “MLNT” as of November 6, 2017, the first trading date after the merger with Cempra. Prior to November 6, 2017, our common stock was traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “CEMP” since February 3, 2012. The following table sets forth the quarterly high and low sales prices per share of our common stock. The per share prices below reflect a 5-for-1 reverse stock split executed on November 3, 2017:








Year ended December 31, 2017








First Quarter








Second Quarter








Third Quarter








Fourth Quarter
















Year ended December 31, 2016








First Quarter








Second Quarter








Third Quarter








Fourth Quarter








On March 2, 2018, the closing price for the common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market was $13.50.

As of March 2, 2018, there were 56 shareholders of record, which excludes shareholders whose shares were held in nominee or street name by brokers. We believe that, when our record holders and shareholders whose shares are held in nominee or street name by brokers are combined, we have in excess of 400 shareholders.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock.  We currently do not plan to declare dividends on shares of our common stock in the foreseeable future. We expect to retain our future earnings, if any, for use in the operation and expansion of our business. The payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon such factors as earnings levels, capital requirements, our overall financial condition and any other factors our board deems relevant.

Pursuant to the terms of the Deerfield loan entered into on January 5, 2018, for as long as the Deerfield loan is outstanding, we may not pay any cash dividends on our common stock. The Deerfield loan is discussed in Note 19 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by Item 5 of Form 10-K regarding equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters” in this report.



Stock Performance Graph

This chart compares the cumulative total return on our common stock with that of the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index and the NASDAQ Composite Index. The chart assumes $100 was invested at the close of market on December 31, 2012, in our common stock (formerly Cempra), and the two indexes and assumes the reinvestment of any dividends. The comparisons shown in the graph below are based upon historical data. We caution that the price performance shown in the graph below is not necessarily indicative of, nor is it intended to forecast, the potential future performance of our common stock.



$100 investment in stock or index





















Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.




























   Biotechnology Index



























NASDAQ Composite
































Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The consolidated statement of income data set forth below with respect to the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015, and the consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2017 and 2016, are derived from the audited consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report and should be read in conjunction with those financial statements and notes thereto. Share quantities have been adjusted to reflect the exchange ratio applied in the merger with Cempra on November 3, 2017.


Consolidated Statement of Operations Data























Year Ended December 31,




















(in thousands, except share and per share data)























Total revenue





















Operating expenses:





















Research and development





















Selling, general and administrative










































Total operating expenses










































Loss from operations










































Other income (expense), net










































Net loss





















Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock dividends





















Net loss attributable to common shareholders





















Basic and diluted loss per share





















Weighted average shares used in computation of basic and diluted loss per share






















Consolidated Balance Sheet Data























As of December 31,




















(in thousands)


Balance sheet data:





















Cash and equivalents





















Working capital





















Total assets





















Total debt, net





















Total shareholders' equity (deficit)






















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

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. In addition to historical information, this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors. We discuss factors that we believe could cause or contribute to these differences below and elsewhere in this report, including those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Management Overview

We are a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing differentiated anti-infectives for the acute care and select community settings to meet critical medical needs in the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases.



On November 3, 2017, privately-held Melinta completed a merger transaction with Cempra, Inc. (“Cempra”) in an all-stock transaction whereby immediately following the transaction Cempra’s shareholders owned approximately 48% and Melinta’s shareholders owned approximately 52% of the combined company, respectively. As a result, Cempra issued approximately 11.4 million shares of common stock to the stockholders of Melinta in exchange for their common shares of Melinta. The combined company was renamed Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. following the merger. As discussed in Note 3 to the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements, Melinta was identified as the acquirer for accounting purposes. Our financial statement presentation reflects the business of Melinta for periods prior to November 3, 2017, and the combined results of operations of Melinta and Cempra for the period thereafter.

We have a commercial product, Baxdela, which is being sold for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (“ABSSSI”) in adults. Melinta is also investigating Baxdela as a treatment for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (“CABP”). We also have a proprietary drug discovery platform, enabling a unique understanding of how antibiotics combat infection and have generated a pipeline spanning multiple phases of research and clinical development. Baxdela was approved by the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) on June 19, 2017. The commercial launch of Baxdela occurred in February 2018.

Recent Developments

On January 5, 2018, we acquired the Infectious Disease Businesses (“IDB”) from the Medicines Company (“Medicines”), including the capital stock of certain subsidiaries of Medicines and certain assets related to its infectious disease business, including the marketed pharmaceutical products containing (i) meropenem and vaborbactam as the active pharmaceutical ingredient and distributed under the brand name Vabomere (“Vabomere”), (ii) oritavancin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient and distributed under the brand name Orbactiv®  (“Orbactiv”) and (iii) minocycline as the active pharmaceutical ingredient and distributed under the brand name Minocin® for Injection (“Minocin”) and line extensions of such products. After closing the acquisition, our product portfolio consists of these products and Baxdela.

In connection with the acquisition of the IDB, we entered into a new financing agreement, the Senior Secured Credit Facility (the “Credit Facility”) with an affiliate of Deerfield Management Company, L.P. (together with certain funds managed by Deerfield Management Company, L.P. (“Deerfield”)). The Credit Facility provides up to $240.0 million in debt and equity financing, with a term of six years. Deerfield made an initial disbursement of $147.8 million in loan financing. The lender also purchased 3,127,846 shares of Melinta common stock for $42.2 million under the Credit Facility, for a total initial financing of $190.0 million. The interest rate on the debt portion of this initial financing is 11.75%. The additional $50.0 million of debt financing is available after we have achieved certain revenue thresholds, and, if drawn, will bear an interest rate of 14.75%. Pursuant to Credit Facility, Deerfield also acquired warrants (held by certain funds managed by Deerfield) for the purchase of 3,792,868 shares of Melinta common stock at a purchase price per share of $16.50. Further, under the terms of the Credit Facility, we are able to secure a revolver credit line of up to $20.0 million.

Also in connection with the acquisition of IDB, Melinta received $40.0 million in additional equity financing from existing and new investors. The proceeds from these arrangements totaling $230.0 million were used primarily to fund the acquisition of the IDB and retire the $40.0 million outstanding under a Loan and Security Agreement dated as of May 2, 2017, (the “2017 Loan Agreement”). See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further details on these debt and equity financing arrangements.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern. We are not currently generating revenue from operations that is significant relative to its level of operating expenses and do not anticipate generating revenue sufficient to offset operating costs in the short-term to mid-term. We have financed our operations to date principally through the sale of equity securities, debt financing and licensing and collaboration arrangements.

We have incurred losses from operations since our inception and had an accumulated deficit of $572.7 million as of December 31, 2017. We expect to incur substantial expenses and further losses in the foreseeable future for the research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates and approved products. As a result, we will need to fund our operations through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, or corporate collaborations and licensing arrangements. We have concluded it is not yet probable that our current operating plans, existing cash and cash collections from existing revenue arrangements and product sales will be sufficient to fund our operations for the next twelve months.



Management is currently pursuing various funding options, including seeking additional equity or debt financing and grants, as well as a strategic collaboration or partnership to obtain additional funding or expand its product offerings. While the recent acquisition of IDB from The Medicines Company does provide us with incremental revenues, the cost to further develop and commercialize Baxdela and to support the IDB products is expected to significantly exceed revenues for at least the next twelve months. While there can be no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts, we have a strong history of raising equity financing to fund our development activities. Should we be unable to obtain adequate financing on reasonable terms in the near term, the Company’s business, result of operations, liquidity and financial condition would be materially and negatively affected, and we would be unable to continue as a going concern. Additionally, there can be no assurance that, assuming we are able to strengthen our cash position, we will achieve sufficient revenue or profitable operations to continue as a going concern. Our history of operating losses, limited cash resources and lack of certainty regarding obtaining significant financing or timing thereof, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern absent a strengthening of our cash position. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

Financial Overview


As we did not launch Baxdela or acquire the IDB products until the first quarter of 2018, nearly all of our revenue that we have recognized through December 31, 2017, was derived from (1) license revenue from A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite S.r.l. (“Menarini”), a leading pharmaceutical company based in Europe, reimbursement of research and development expenses by Menarini, and (2) a government contract that we assumed in connection with the Cempra merger in November 2017.

For markets outside of the United States, we have partnered with leading multi-national pharmaceutical companies around the world to optimize the global commercial potential of Baxdela. Currently, commercial agreements exist in Europe, Asia-Pacific (excluding Japan), Central and South America and the Middle East and Africa regions.

In December 2014, we entered into distribution and supply agreements for Baxdela with Eurofarma Laboratórios S.A. (“Eurofarma”), a leading pharmaceutical company in Brazil. Under the terms of these arrangements, Eurofarma will be responsible for filing for approval for Baxdela in Brazil and, if approved, will commercialize Baxdela in that territory. Upon entering into this arrangement, we received a $15.0 million payment, $6.0 million was recorded as an equity investment and $9.0 million of deferred revenue was recorded as a liability in January 2015, when the transaction was funded. In August 2017, we entered into an amendment to the distribution and supply agreement to extend the licensed territory to substantially all of Central America and South America for consideration of $1.0 million. We have the ability to earn additional milestones of $3.6 million based on regulatory approval in several countries.

In August 2015, we entered into supply and distribution agreements with Malin Life Sciences Holding Limited (“Malin”), a principal investor of Melinta with a more than 5% ownership interest, which Malin subsequently assigned to its affiliate Altan Pharma Limited (“Altan”). Pursuant to the terms and conditions at the time of the supply and distribution agreements, Altan is entitled to exclusive rights to obtain product approval, procure supply from Melinta and commercialize Baxdela in Africa and the Middle East. In connection with the supply and distribution agreements, we are entitled to receive a royalty based on Altan’s net sales of Baxdela. No upfront payments were received or paid in connection with these agreements.

In February 2017, we executed a license agreement with Menarini, under which we licensed rights to commercialize Baxdela in certain European, Asia-Pacific (excluding Japan) and other rest-of-world territories. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the arrangement, Menarini is entitled to exclusive rights to obtain product approval, to procure supply from us and to commercialize Baxdela in the licensed territories, and we may earn additional commercial and regulatory milestones of approximately €90.0 million. We are also entitled to receive a tiered royalty, in the low double digits, based on Menarini’s net sales of Baxdela and the country of sale. In addition, we and Menarini agreed to share jointly in the future development cost of Baxdela, including the current CABP Phase 3 clinical trial and potentially other future studies initiated for additional indications. At the onset of this arrangement, we received $19.9 million, and going forward, we are entitled to reimbursement of 50% of the development costs incurred for our in-process CABP Phase 3 clinical trial. We recognized $19.9 million of revenue associated with the delivery of the license to Menarini in the first quarter of 2017 and are recognizing revenue related to the reimbursement of development costs as the services are performed. In the year ended December 31, 2017, we recognized revenue totaling $13.1 million related to the development services. Of that amount, we have received $9.7 million in cash payments; the balance of $3.4 million is recorded in Receivables on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2017.

In May 2013, Cempra entered into an agreement with BARDA for the evaluation and development of solithromycin for the treatment of bacterial infections in pediatric populations and infections caused by bioterror threat pathogens, specifically anthrax and tularemia. The agreement is a cost-plus fixed-fee development contract, with up to five work segments that BARDA may request at its sole discretion pursuant to the agreement. Under the agreement, we are reimbursed and recognize revenue as allowable costs are incurred.



In February 2016, BARDA exercised the third option work segment of the agreement, which is intended to fund a Phase 2/3 study of intravenous, oral capsule and oral suspension formulations of solithromycin in pediatric patients from two months old to 17 years with community acquired bacterial pneumonia. In September 2016, the contract was modified to increase the third option work segment for increased manufacturing work related to the development of a second supply source for solithromycin, which established the value of the third option work segment at approximately $33.5 million. The estimated period of performance of this option work segment runs through May 2018. At November 3, 2017, when we merged with Cempra, the estimated remaining value of the third work segment was $21.6 million. We recognized $0.9 million of revenue in the period from November 3, 2017, to December 31, 2017. We held a discussion with BARDA on March 15, 2018, and we jointly agreed to wind down this pediatric study.  

We launched Baxdela in the United States in the first quarter of 2018, and we acquired Vabomere, Orbactiv and Minocin in connection with the IDB transaction in January 2018. As such, we recognized product sales revenue beginning in January 2018.

Research and Development Expenses

Since our inception, we have focused our resources on our research and development activities, including conducting pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, manufacturing development efforts and activities related to regulatory filings for our product candidates. We recognize our research and development expenses as they are incurred. Our research and development expenses consist primarily of:


employee-related expenses, which include salaries, benefits, travel and share-based compensation expense;


fees paid to consultants and clinical research organizations (“CROs”) in connection with our pre-clinical and clinical trials, and other related clinical trial costs, such as for investigator grants, patient screening, laboratory work and statistical compilation and analysis;


costs related to acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials and costs for developing additional manufacturing sources for and the manufacture of pre-approval inventory of our drugs under development;


costs related to compliance with regulatory requirements;


consulting fees paid to third parties related to non-clinical research and development;


research and laboratory supplies and facility costs; and


license, research and milestone payments related to licensed technologies while the related drug is in development.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) consist primarily of salaries and benefits-related expenses for personnel, including stock-based compensation expense, in our executive, finance, sales, marketing and business development functions. SG&A costs also include facility costs for our administrative offices and professional fees relating to legal, intellectual property, human resources, information technology, accounting and consulting services.

We expect to incur increased expenses associated with expanding our marketing function and building a U.S. commercial team in connection with the commercial launch of Baxdela. We started incurring these expenses in the second half of 2016 in anticipation of the marketing approval of Baxdela in the second quarter of 2017. These expenses increased substantially in the fourth quarter of 2017 and will continue to increase in the first half of 2018 as we complete the development of our sales team and in connection with the acquisition of IDB from Medicines. We also expect to support the growth in our business with increased headcount and infrastructure costs. We expect that our selling, general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we expand our operating activities, maintain and expand our patent portfolio, and incur additional costs associated with being a newly public company.

Interest income and Expense

Our excess cash balances are invested in money market funds, which generate a minimal amount of interest income. We expect to continue this investment philosophy for excess cash as additional funds are received or generated from product sales.

Historically, we have used notes payable and convertible promissory notes as sources of funding. We record interest on the notes using the effective interest method.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which we have prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. On an



ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other 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. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report. However, we believe that the following accounting policies are the most critical to aid you in fully understanding and evaluating our financial condition and results of operations:


Revenue recognition


Accrued research and development expenses


Stock-based compensation

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 605, Revenue Recognition. Our revenue arrangements consist of licensing revenue related to non-refundable upfront fees, reimbursement of research and development expenses, milestone payments and royalties on future product sales by the licensee. Revenue is recognized when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists; (2) delivery of the products and/or services has occurred; (3) the selling price is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured.

For arrangements that involve the delivery of more than one element, significant contract interpretation is sometimes required to determine the appropriate accounting, including whether the deliverables specified in a multiple-element arrangement should be treated as separate units of accounting for revenue recognition purposes and, if so, how the aggregate contract value should be allocated among the deliverable elements and when to recognize revenue for each element under ASC 605. Each product, service and/or right to use assets is evaluated to determine whether it qualifies as a separate unit of accounting. This determination is based on whether the deliverable has “stand-alone value” to the customer. The consideration that is fixed or determinable is then allocated to each separate unit of accounting based on the relative fair values of each deliverable. The consideration allocated to each unit of accounting is recognized as the related goods and services are delivered, limited to the consideration that is not contingent upon future deliverables. When an arrangement is accounted for as a single unit of accounting, we determine the period over which the performance obligations will be performed and revenue recognized.

Under the Menarini license agreement, discussed in Note 15 to our audited consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report, at the time the agreement was entered into, we identified two deliverables: the delivery of the Baxdela license to Menarini and the right to a related sublicense. While we are also providing development services in connection with the expansion of applicable indications for Baxdela, we are under no obligation to perform such services. In the event that we perform development services related to other indications of Baxdela, Menarini has the option to obtain the results of such services by reimbursing us for 50 percent of our related costs, and we have determined that Menarini’s option is not priced at a significant and incremental discount. As such, we have not recognized any revenue related to the potential cost reimbursement at the contract execution date. To the extent that we are reimbursed for development services, such amounts are recognized separately from the initial license.

The agreement also states a separate supply agreement will be entered into at a future date under which Menarini will purchase Baxdela products from us until it can commence its own manufacturing. The pricing of Baxdela products under the supply agreement will not be at a significant, incremental discount. And, under the terms of the agreement, we may receive up to approximately €90 million for regulatory, commercial and sales-based milestones as well as low, double-digit royalties on future sales of Baxdela. We will recognize any future milestone payment received as revenue if and when Menarini achieves the milestone.

For immediate use of the license and right to sublicense, Menarini is able to leverage the information contained within the Baxdela NDAs, which we filed with the FDA in October 2016 for ABSSSI, to prepare the regulatory filings in the licensed territories. And, while the FDA approval was received in June 2017, regulatory approval in many of the licensed territories is not contingent upon U.S. FDA approval. We recognized $19.9 million, the consideration that was fixed and determinable at the inception of the agreement, upon delivery of the license and right to sublicense in the first quarter of 2017, and we will recognize revenue associated with the development services as they are provided to Menarini. In the twelve months ended December 31, 2017, we recognized revenue totaling $13.1 million related to the development services.



In December 2014, we entered into a supply agreement and a distribution agreement, together referred to as the commercial agreements, and a stock purchase agreement with Eurofarma. The overall purpose of these agreements was to establish a relationship with Eurofarma to distribute Baxdela in Brazil. Upon entering the agreements, we received a $1.0 million milestone payment for consideration of the rights granted in the commercial agreements. Simultaneously, Eurofarma purchased $14.0 million of Series 3-B Convertible Preferred Stock at a negotiated valuation of $2.660397 per share.

Because the Eurofarma agreements were entered into on a concurrent basis, we determined that accounting for this transaction required an analysis of the relative fair values of the agreements and that the total consideration received should be allocated to the various components based on the relative fair values. In the analysis, we determined that we would record $6.0 million as the fair value of the equity investment and $9.0 million as deferred revenue relating to the commercial agreements. The determination of these amounts required significant estimates by management.

The value of shares purchased by Eurofarma was determined by management with input from an independent external valuation expert based on the Probability Weighted Expected Return Model (“PWERM”) model, as of December 31, 2014. This model required estimates of the future value of Melinta under various funding, acquisition and liquidation scenarios. These scenarios were developed by management based on comparative market data and internal fund-raising objectives. The PWERM model also included assumptions regarding discount rate, new option grants, volatility and a discount for lack of marketability.

The value of the commercial agreements, which essentially represent the distribution rights for Baxdela in Brazil, were determined using a comparative business valuation method (often referred to as the “with-and-without” method). We prepared an expected value analysis assuming a commercial entry into Brazil without a partner versus the scenario of working with Eurofarma as a partner. The difference in expected values in these two scenarios was used to determine the relative value of the commercial agreements. This comparative business model valuation method required assumptions regarding product launch timing, market size, market share, market uptake, pricing, research and development costs, commercialization costs, tax rates and the discount rate applied. In developing the assumptions regarding product launch timing, market size, market share and market uptake, we used estimates included in the commercial agreements, which estimates may ultimately change based on actual results. Changes in any of our assumptions may have had a material impact on the distribution of relative values between equity and deferred revenue.

When the transaction was recorded, the value assigned to the equity component of this transaction was included in the balance sheet as convertible preferred stock. The value assigned to the commercial agreements was recorded as deferred revenue.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue From Contracts With Customers (Topic 606). This pronouncement outlines a single comprehensive model to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts. The original guidance was effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. However, in July 2015, the FASB agreed to delay the effective date by one year, with early adoption permitted, but not before the original effective date of the standard. Companies may use either a full retrospective or a modified retrospective approach to adopt this guidance.

We will adopt this standard in the first quarter of the year ending December 31, 2018 using the modified retrospective method. Under this method, we will recognize the cumulative effect of adoption as an adjustment to retained earnings at the date of the initial application (i.e., January 1, 2018). We have elected to apply the new standard to contracts with customers that are not completed as of the date of initial application. Topic 606 (as amended by ASU 2016-12) defines a completed contract as “a contract for which the entity has transferred all of the goods or services identified in accordance with revenue guidance that is in effect before the date of initial application.”

For the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, substantially all of our revenue was related to licensing and contract research arrangements related to our Baxdela product. We continue to evaluate whether the standard will impact the timing of revenue recognition from these arrangements. To date, we (1) have performed an initial assessment of our revenue streams; (2) have completed an inventory of all contracts which will be outstanding as of January 1, 2018; and (3) are in the process of applying the five-step model to those revenue streams and contracts to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative impacts the new standard will have on our business and reported revenues. During the three year period ended December 31, 2017, we did not recognize any revenue from product sales. All of our product revenue from Baxdela and the acquired products will be recognized under the new standard. We will provide expanded footnote disclosure related to revenue recognition consistent with ASU 2014-09 in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ending March 31, 2018.

Accrued Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we estimate accrued research and development expenses. The process involves reviewing quotations and contracts, identifying services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of



the actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed or when contract milestones are achieved. We develop estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on the facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments as necessary. The significant estimates in our accrued research and development expenses are related to costs incurred by our partners, such as CROs, in connection with research and development activities for which we have not yet been invoiced. Expenses relating to CROs are the most significant component of our research and development accruals.

We recognize expenses related to CROs based on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to quotes and contracts with the CROs. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the level of services provided at the time of payment and result in a prepayment of the research and development expense. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we adjust the accrual or prepaid expense accordingly.

Stock-Based Compensation

We account for stock-based compensation using the fair value method. The fair value of awards granted is estimated at the date of grant and recognized as expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period with the offsetting credit to additional paid-in capital. Stock options granted typically fully vest over four years from the grant date and expire after 10 years.

As a result of the merger with Cempra on November 3, 2017, we have three active stock-based compensation plans, the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Melinta 2011 Plan”) and two legacy Cempra plans: the Sixth Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Plan (the “2006 Plan”) and the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2011 Incentive Plan”). In all three plans, stock options are granted at exercise prices not less than the estimated fair value of Melinta’s common stock at the date of grant. We utilize the Black-Scholes option-pricing model for determining the estimated fair value of awards. Key inputs and assumptions include the expected term of the option, stock price volatility, risk-free interest rate, dividend yield, estimated fair value of our common stock, and exercise price. Many of the assumptions require significant judgment and any changes could have a material impact in the determination of stock-based compensation expense. We do not estimate forfeitures when recognizing compensation expense; instead, we recognize forfeitures as they occur.

We have historically granted common stock options to members of our management. The majority of options outstanding as of December 31, 2017, were granted under the Melinta 2011 Plan or the 2011 Incentive Plan in December 2013 or later. As we continue to expand our headcount in support of pursuing additional clinical programs and building a commercial organization, we expect to make additional option grants, which will result in additional stock-based compensation expense. Prior to the merger with Cempra on November 3, 2017, the fair value of Melinta’s common stock has historically been determined by management with input from an independent external valuation expert. The intent of management was to ensure that the exercise price of issued options is not less than fair value at the date of the grant. As of November 3, 2017, Melinta’s common stock is traded on the NASDAQ market and we no longer use the valuation expert.

The following table summarizes the weighted-average assumptions, other than the estimated fair value of our common stock, used in the Black-Scholes model to value stock option grants for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.  












Risk-free interest rate


1.8% - 2.1%










Weighted-average volatility


87.5% - 108.1%










Expected term - employee awards (in years)


3.1 - 6.1










Forfeiture rate













Dividend yield














Risk-Free Interest Rate—The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for zero coupon U.S. Treasury notes with maturities approximately equal to the option’s expected term.


Weighted-average Volatility—After the merger with Cempra, all outstanding options are to purchase common shares of Cempra (re-named Melinta in the merger). Since these shares are publicly traded, we primarily used the historical volatility information for the publicly traded shares. Prior to the merger, the Company had been privately held since inception. Therefore, there was no specific historical or implied volatility information available. Accordingly, prior to the merger, we determine volatility based on an average of reported volatility of selected peer companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry in a similar stage of development.


Expected Term—Our historical exercise behavior on previous grants does not provide a reasonable estimate for future exercise activity for employees who have been awarded stock options in the past three years. Therefore, the average expected term was calculated using the simplified method, as defined by GAAP, for estimating the expected term.




Forfeiture Rate—On January 1, 2016, Melinta adopted the guidance in ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, and changed its accounting policy for stock-based compensation to recognize stock option forfeitures as they occur rather than estimating an expected amount of forfeitures.  


Expected Dividend Yield—We have never declared or paid any cash dividends and do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.


Results of Operations (all amounts in tables in thousands)

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016

The results of legacy Cempra have been included in our financial results from the acquisition date, November 3, 2017. The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016:




Year Ended December 31,



Increase (Decrease)